Talk:James Newland/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Abraham, B.S. in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
No problems, although consider using third level (===) headings to break up the text on his First World War service.
I have used third level headings for the "Victoria Cross" and "Later war service" sections. Do you mean his earlier service during the war? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
Although complete enough, I'd be interested to see more information on his service in the Boer War (what was the "action" that he saw?), his service 1902-1914 in the Australian army and subsequently in 1919-1941 (where was he posted and what appointments did he hold?) As well as on his police service (Which force was he with?).--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wish I could further improve these areas, but all of the information in the article is as much as I was able to gather from all of my sources. However, I can clarify that it was the Tasmanian Police Force. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation):   b (all significant views):  
  • It is stable.
     
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:  

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply