Talk:Gordon P. Saville/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 11:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

After correcting some minor grammatical errors along the way of reading through the article's content, I believe it now satisfies the criteria for prose; I saw no other issues in this respect. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

The article cites reputable sources, and no original research is apparent. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

The article covers all important aspects of the subject, and does not incorporate anything which stands out as trivial. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article does not appear to be biased on any aspect of the subject. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Looking at the history of the page, from present back to at least January, it shows no signs of any editing disputes rising up. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All 10 images currently used in the article comply with the rules of licensing/fair use/otherwise presentation. The images are effectively used throughout the article, and have informative captions. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Is this review going to be finished? Been tagged for a long time now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting patiently, ready to respond to critical points. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• The article is passed as a GA. I apologize for the long review, but I was unable to complete it at a faster rate due to reasons outside of Wikipedia. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory narrative?

Not to be a gadfly, because this is an excellent article, but even a cursory reading shows an emphasis describing a prescience in opposing the Bomber Mafia's doctrine in 1937 that "bombers will always get through" but ignoring that he argued just the opposite about Soviet bombers 15 years later. Could it be that the impact of strategic bombing in WWII affected his thinking? So-called "daylight precision bombing" was proved wrong, but strategic bombing as a weapon devastated Germany and Japan before the advent of nuclear warfare. The article would be better in explaining this seeming contradiction. Just a thought.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)