Talk:Michael J. Daly/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The Lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Some of the things mentioned in the prose need links. 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, taps, etc. I recommend going through the article and linking to anything that an average person doesn't instantly understand.

These are done. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. "the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) of Fort Drum and The United States Military Academy of West Point performed the ceremony." -this should be moved up in the section.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Longdashes (—) do not have spaces in between them. The form for them is "word—word" this is not consistent in the article. Also, dashes (-) used in the prose should be replaced with longdashes.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. I recommend a section/table for the awards he won, and some details as to how he was awarded the Silver Stars.

I added the table and the display of ribbons but I haev yet to locate the info about the awarding of the silver or bronze stars. Also, although it is not specifically referenced in any reference I can find I added a note stating that he probably also received the World War II Victory Medal. --Kumioko (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "In May, 2006 Fairfield University awarded Michael Daly an honorary degree..." -This quote needs to be put into block form, and needs a reference.

Removed, I couldn't find a reference for this one so I removed it. I did however find a couple of other honors with references that I added in. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. The quote in the next graph, "You walk that hallowed ground alone with your memories..." also needs a reference.
   2. "'Father, we need peacemakers. Anyone can shoot a gun.'" -needs a reference.

I removed this one, I remember seeing it somewhere but I can't find it in any of the references. If I can find it again I will add it back with the appropriate reference. --Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. He then saluted Rev. Scott from his death bed. -needs a reference.

Also removed this one, again I remember seeing it somewhere but I can't find it in any of the references. If I can find it again I will add it back with the appropriate reference. --Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Every reference needs to be put into a {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} template.

Is this just a general statement or is there one specifically that you see. I do not see any that are not in a cite. --Kumioko (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage:

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Not Yet

   1. "His wife's birthday is April 18, the date (though not the year) he battled so valiantly in Nuremberg." - This is both POV and uncited.

Done, I removed several bits of text that where either POC or just not needed. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Not Yet

   1. It is customary to include an image of the Medal of Honor next to or underneath the photograph of the person in Medal of Honor articles.

Done, I added the MOH image next to his per request. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   On Hold until issues are resolved. -Ed!^(talk) 17:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

   The fixes look to be coming along very well. You've addressed all of my prose concerns, just fix my suggestions in the verifiability section and the article will be ready for GA! -Ed!^(talk) 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   OK, the changes to the article seem to have addressed all of the things I was looking for in the references. Well done, the page has improves significantly and now meets the GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Congrats! -Ed!^(talk) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)