Talk:C. W. A. Scott/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This certainly has the potential to be a GA, but there are quite a few issues that mean it will take some work. I'll detail my concerns below and put the review on hold to allow time for them to be addressed. Apologies if it seems like a long list, but it's doable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

general

• Prose:
  • I gave the first paragraph a quick copy edit. You should go over the rest of the article or ask someone else to and check the prose
  • You need a lot more commas in there—the lack of them makes it quite difficult to read
• Ranks and titles should only be capitalised when they're in front of a name
• lot of hyphens (-) which should be endashes (–) or emdashes (—), see MOS:DASH
• The article relies heavily on a primary source, namely his autobiography
• Images need alt text
• References need proper formatting, not just bare URLs—they need titles, publications, publication dates (if known) and retrieval dates at the very least. There are various templates to help format them consistently and the London Gazette refs require the use of Template:London Gazette  Done Thanks to Ohconfucius(talk)

lead

• MOS:BIO is worth a read, if you haven't read it already
  • The article should open with his rank since that was his title  Done
  • Only the name should be bolded (not post-noms like AFC) and you need a comma before the post-noms  Done
  • Place of birth shouldn't be in the lead  Done
  • Full name and dates of birth/death require citations  Done As close as it can be with records available from freeMBD index

Cruiser and heavyweight boxing titles

• In Scott's case the squad commander named Newbigging was a large fellow of some six foot four and had seen a lot of service with the Scots Guards in World War I. Newbigging soon took offence to Scott's precocious attitude, as Scott was undisciplined and fresh from the sugar plantations, where he was well adept at enforcing discipline, but not too keen on taking orders for himself. This clash of personalities lead to Scott and Newbigging having a bout of fisticuffs (as Scott referred to it), of which Scott was the victor. What happened to WP:NPOV?
• Two {{fact}} tags  Done

I'll leave this for now to give a chance for the fixes to be made and check back in a few days.

Thanks HJ, I really appreciate your input on this, I will try and find the time asap to start addressing the points you have raised, I will need help with the prose tho because that really isn't my stong point, as you noticed!! I hope you dont ming if I put a done tick by each point when I or someone else has resolved it, a bit psycological but will help me get on top of sorting through the list thanks again for your help and if you know anyone who would be suited to helping to fix the grammer and any other probs I would be most gratefull! many thanks Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How's this review coming along? Was going well but no progress in a couple weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman, I am still going to sort through the problems that I can fis myself but am so busy with work etc that I just haven't had any time to do anything for a couple of weeks, but I will when I get a chance, I would very much appreciate it though if some-one could go through the grammer issues though as thats not my strong point, but I dont really know who to ask or how to go about getting help, I will try to find some time to deal with the other issues asap, Cheers Jimmy3d0 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

New reviewer

In this message (WT:Good article nominations#Reviews for Tony Blair and C. W. A. Scott the original reviewer indicated that they are unable to carry on, so I shall continue.

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose needs a good copy-edit, the WP:Guild of Copyeditors may be able to help. Unnecessary captilisation and bolding, lack of commas leading to poor readability.

   Over long section names

   Lists, bulleted lists are deprecated.

   Bibliography should be below references, with ELs below them.

   Are articles on the individual aircraft registrations likely in the near future?

   Red linking terms such as squad commander are unnecessary, also this twerm should not be in quotes.

   Not all quotations are in quote marks. Block quotes may be suitable for longer quotes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Citation style is inconsistent, especially the cites to books, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners

   Author, newspaper, date details needed for newspaper sources

   Free DMB is not a reliable source.

   EL section is rather too much, see WP:EL

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   rather too much detail about the divorce, just make the statement with a citation, the full newspaper story is not needed. Likewise the full obituary - publication in full may be a copyright violation. The list of aircraft is unnecessary, perhaps a spin off list article.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   10% samples of video or sound clips are permissible, but not the full 9.5 minutes, sevral images lack appropriate no free use rationales for use in this article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This has been under review for a long time with little improvement made. Please address all of the issues raised, check against all of the good article criteria and take to peer review before renomination. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

Hello, Sorry to butt-in, but it would appear to me that a sufficient amount of corrections have been made to reach the standards of a good article. There are many GAs that do not meet the quality of this article, and I believe another look may be useful. Thanks for listening, Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me! I just haven't been able to find the time to do any more work on the artical recently, I wish I could because I really want to get it to GA status, but its good to hear your views on this and hear that you think it may already be at GA level. Cheers Jimmy3d0 (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Couple of points. First, who chose Scott to fly a DH88? The article gives the impression that he was chosen by de Havilland, which I do not think was th case. And secondly, who was his third wife and when did he mary her?TheLongTone (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)