Talk:Wilfred Arthur/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Article is very well written in general. A couple of minor observations - Sofali isn't linked. I'd like to know when the aircraft was put on display. I'd also like to know what the duck feathers were used for!
- All done - there is no article for Sofafi (even after correcting the name!) but I put in the country now at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thankyou for clearing up those little mysteries :) One other point I forgot to make - the phrase "Mentioned in Despatches" with its capitalized first and last words. Is there some reason this needs to be capitalized? AFAIK it is not some sort of formal title, it's just a phrase that is commonly used in military communications. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about its common usage but convention in WP articles, at least, seems to be caps, both in the article itself and where the expression is used (in my reasonably extensive experience at least). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Actually, on reading up on it, it seems it was made into a formal award. However, the award is entitled "Mention in Despatches", not "Mentioned in Despatches", so I think you should either rephrase the sentence to use the proper name or else decapitalize the phrase. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, what's your source for the exact name? The WP article calls it "Mentioned" and the London Gazette that promulgates all of them frequently uses that as well (sometimes "Mention", admittedly) -- I know the refs in the Arthur article from the AWM say the latter but the Gazette is more of a yardstick for this sort of thing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, withdrawing my objection as it seems you are correct that this phrase is often capitalized. Seems weird to me, but I guess if it's good enough for the Gazette then it's good enough for the 'pedia. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, I was just responding when you got that in -- many tks for your understanding, it seems to be one of those things that can justifiably be rendered more than one way and consistency within an article is the main thing, though I think Mentioned in Despatches (phrasing and capitalisation) is the most common. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, withdrawing my objection as it seems you are correct that this phrase is often capitalized. Seems weird to me, but I guess if it's good enough for the Gazette then it's good enough for the 'pedia. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, what's your source for the exact name? The WP article calls it "Mentioned" and the London Gazette that promulgates all of them frequently uses that as well (sometimes "Mention", admittedly) -- I know the refs in the Arthur article from the AWM say the latter but the Gazette is more of a yardstick for this sort of thing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Actually, on reading up on it, it seems it was made into a formal award. However, the award is entitled "Mention in Despatches", not "Mentioned in Despatches", so I think you should either rephrase the sentence to use the proper name or else decapitalize the phrase. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about its common usage but convention in WP articles, at least, seems to be caps, both in the article itself and where the expression is used (in my reasonably extensive experience at least). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thankyou for clearing up those little mysteries :) One other point I forgot to make - the phrase "Mentioned in Despatches" with its capitalized first and last words. Is there some reason this needs to be capitalized? AFAIK it is not some sort of formal title, it's just a phrase that is commonly used in military communications. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- All done - there is no article for Sofafi (even after correcting the name!) but I put in the country now at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- MOS is on hold because I'm not intimately familiar with it (even after all this time!) and I would like to brush up quickly before confirming, as this is my first GAR. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I asked at GA talk if it was acceptable to hardcode images in GA articles and Arsenikk responded by decoding them - but now you have recoded them. So I'm not sure I should approve this article until that dispute has been resolved. Let me know when you two have come to an understanding and I will finish this GA. Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I can discuss it with Arsenikk if you insist but there's no difference in how I've done the images in this article to the last half dozen or more GANs I've successfully submitted recently and, for the matter, the last half dozen or so FACs I've successfully submitted recently. I've always gone by the prevailing convention when it comes to MOS and, while I recall it was once a hard-and-fast rule about not forcing image sizes, that's certainly been relaxed at some stage -- I saw the particular guideline that Arsenikk used to back his judgement but, by the same token, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images doesn't advise against it and given the fact that it's never been raised as an issue in the many reviews I mentioned earlier, I'm surprised it's a potential stopper now. If there's a bit of a disjoint between two parts of the image guideline, I don't think this article in particular should be the battleground for sorting it out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I asked at GA talk if it was acceptable to hardcode images in GA articles and Arsenikk responded by decoding them - but now you have recoded them. So I'm not sure I should approve this article until that dispute has been resolved. Let me know when you two have come to an understanding and I will finish this GA. Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Article is very well written in general. A couple of minor observations - Sofali isn't linked. I'd like to know when the aircraft was put on display. I'd also like to know what the duck feathers were used for!
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
