Talk:Roscoe Charles Wilson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 12:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required)
• Linkrot: One External link reports as dead [4].
  • "Biographical data on Air Force General Officers"
• Alt text: images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • This article is quite well written and I could find no major issues with prose or MOS.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS
  • No issues with WP:OR as far as I can see.
  • One minor point: in the infobox you list his years of service as 1928-1961, however in the text you say he entered West Point in 1924. Wouldn't his military service then have started in 1924?

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Article seems to cover all major aspects of the subjects life and career.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues with POV.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

  • Images are both PD and seem appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article easily meets the GA critera in my opinion, so I am happy to pass it. There is a minor technical point above regarding a dead link and the issue of the service dates in the infobox, but none of these prevent the article's promotion. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)