Talk:James Allen Ward/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• in the lead, suggest linking night fighter

• Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• do we know the occupation of his father?

• No, not in the sources I have access to, which are pretty light on his early life. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• No worries, thanks for checking. I suspect that it might be in a primary source document somewhere; hopefully one day someone will dig something out for us to cite. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• do we know if he had any siblings, or if he played any sports as a child?

• As above. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• No worries, thanks for checking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• suggest splitting the second paragraph of the Service with No. 75 Squadron section, as it seems quite long (although this will potentially be difficult)

• I have split this up at what I think might be a logical point. Still leaves a longish paragraph but hopefully better than it was. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, that works from my perspective. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• However, there is some doubt whether this incident ever happened --> suggest attributing this in text. For instance, However, according to X, there is some..."

• This was a holdover from the article as I found it. Doing some checking, the questioning of the validity of the anecdote was not in the original source so I have trimmed and slightly rephrased this. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• entitled 'Memorial to Sergeant James Allen Ward, V.C.' and --> the MOS usually prefers double quotes, but in this case I think it should probably use italics per MOS:ITALIC

• Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• three that would be made to New Zealand airmen during the course of the war: perhaps mention the names of the other two here

• Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• in the References, "Boston, MA, United States": I'd probably just use "Boston, Massachusetts" here

• Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• in the References, "Wellington: War History Branch" --> "Wellington, New Zealand: War History Branch" for consistency

• Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• there are no dab links (no action required)
• there is one dup link in the lead, but in the circumstances it makes sense (no action required)
• citations all appear to be reliable sources and all paragraphs/content appears referenced (no action required)
• images seem appropriately licensed

AustralianRupert, thanks for stopping by to look at this one. I have responded to your various points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

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.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

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

b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c. it contains no original research; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

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).

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

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

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

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

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