Talk:William Harper (Rhodesian politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article William Harper (Rhodesian politician) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 6, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
May 17, 2016 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
Current status: Featured article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Harper (Rhodesian politician)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, hope you enjoy it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:


  • All look appropriate, the fair use one is legit.
Early life
  • "During 1940 he was one of "The Few"—the Allied pilots of the Battle of Britain, in which he flew with No. 17 Squadron and was wounded in action." I know what you're saying here, but it might be more easily understood if broken into two sentences.
  • I've redone this whole bit, hope it's okay now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Dominion Party
  • "... the opposition Dominion Party (which called for full "dominion" or Commonwealth realm status)." What was the other party's position?
  • The governing United Federal Party also aspired to Commonwealth realm status, but the Dominion Party were more radical—kind of like the Conservatives and UKIP in today's British politics. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's it. Not much in need of fixing here. I'm looking forward to promoting it. Thanks for writing another good Rhodesia article. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this and for the kind words. I've replied to each point above. I've expanded the RAF service part quite a bit, maybe have another look to be sure. I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed the article. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It all looks good and I'm glad to pass it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I'm glad you like it. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)