Talk:James C. Marshall

substitute MEDALS?

In the Manhattan District article the original code name is given as "Development of Substitute Materials". I can not check the reference, but I think "Medals" is probably wrong. --AJim (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 11:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Could take a week or so, RW pressing right now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:39, 23 February 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.	In the lead, suggest linking Manhattan Project to the first mention of the Project, rather than the district. suggest toured the battlefields duplicate links of WWII and BG in the lead suggest promotion accelerated suggest placing for Laboratory Development of Substitute Materials in parentheses suggest and Marshall would be given an overseas posting
	1b. 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:
	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.	Single image, licensing ok.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for a week for a few prose issues to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Passing. Good job. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

All recommended changes made. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)