Talk:Imperial Gift/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 11:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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.	March 2003 is kinda weird, 2003 would just be better Citations in the lead are unecessary One external link has some problems
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Duplicate links to RAF and Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Discussion

Hi User:Tomandjerry211, thanks for taking on this review. I have addressed the issues you have pointed out as follows:

1a

• The article is from the March 2003 edition of the SA Flyer, a monthly magazine, removing the month would break the citation. However the source is actually not cited in the article so I have removed it from the Bibliography. If you think it should be put in a "Further reading" list I could do so, and also with any other Bibliography entries that are not actually cited.
• The redundant citation in the lead has been removed.
• Which external link is broken? The article is already a few years old so linkrot may indeed be a problem.
  • I think the link works now,--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

1b

• Overlinking fixed.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • @Tomandjerry211 - Thanks, that was surprisingly easy! I have gone ahead with moving uncited Bibliography items to "Further reading". Will you complete the promotion or is there another process to go through? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It's all  Done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)