Talk:Jarrett Robertson

Jarrett Robertson has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 12, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

A fact from Jarrett Robertson appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Major General Jarrett Robertson earned the nickname "Desert Fox" by having similar skills in battle to German field marshal Erwin Rommel, who held the same nickname?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jarrett Robertson.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Major General Jarrett Robertson joined the United States Army as an officer because a sergeant told him he would be drafted anyway, so he might as well be an officer? Source: Conley, Jim (1987-07-12). "Cavalry Has New Leader". El Paso Times. p. 3B. Retrieved 2024-07-13 – via Newspapers.com.
- ALT1: ... that Major General Jarrett Robertson earned the nickname "Desert Fox" by having similar skills in battle to German field marshal Erwin Rommel, who held the same nickname? Source: Ledbetter, Kitty (2022-11-10). "Remembering 'Superb Soldier' Maj. Gen. Jarrett Jackson Robertson". Ozark County Times. Retrieved 2024-07-12.
- ALT2: ... that Major General Jarrett Robertson died in the 1993 crash of a Black Hawk helicopter when its fuel control value failed and the aircraft's weight became imbalanced? Source: Moag, Jeffrey (1993-06-24). "Blackhawk Crash Blamed on Failed Fuel Control Valve". Inside the Pentagon. 9 (25). Inside Washington Publishers: 1–2. Retrieved 2024-07-13 – via JSTOR.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Strip (book)
- Comment: Happy to provide a PDF of the JSTOR source for ALT2 by email as needed. It's also available via TWL.

Moved to mainspace by Bsoyka (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Bsoyka (t • c • g) 18:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Bsoyka, I'm not reviewing but I believe that this photo is almost certainly in the public domain as a US government work. Maybe consider making this an image hook? Bremps... 23:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bremps: I completely agree and am almost certain it is too, but even after searching I haven't actually found a source that says it's his official photo. I didn't want to technically assume it was PD though, so I just went with fair use hoping to later find proof it was government work. I don't think it'd be a good choice for a Main Page photo at this time because there's no definitive answer that it's freely licensed. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Everything checks out, and the promoter can choose the hook unless the nominator chooses a main preference. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight preference for ALT0 but I think they'd all be good. Promotor's choice! (By the way, SL93, if you leave the |eligibilityother=, |policyother=, and |hookother= params in the review empty, it cleans things up a bit. I believe those specific ones are only meant to be used if there is an issue. Thanks for reviewing!) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jarrett Robertson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 02:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 03:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose looks good, no complaints. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is a little short but I feel that it doesn't need to be very long based on the article's content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I checked about half the sources and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not much info on the guy so the length here is appropriate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Prose looks good, sources passed my source check, overall this article looks good. Great work, I have no real complaints or input here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.