Talk:Leslie Douglas Jackson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: - the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
• Disambiguations: none found - [3] (no action required)
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action required)
• Alt text: Images all have alt text - [5] (no action required)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • The use of 'wing leader' in this sentence seems a little odd to me: "By 1944, Jackson was wing leader of No. 78 (Fighter ) Wing in Western New Guinea, gaining promotion..." Maybe it could be reworded to "By 1944, Jackson was in command of No. 78 (Fighter ) Wing in Western New Guinea, gaining promotion..." or something along those lines;
    • Yes it does seems a bit of a strange term to the unititiated I think; "Wing Leader" appears to be a kind of exec officer, or operations leader, rather than the commanding officer of the wing -- if I ever find a clear and unambiguous definition of it I might even create a little article or Wictionary entry for it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Interesting... no worries then. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "that saw two of his fellows shot down." Maybe reword to "fellow pilots shot down." ;
    • That's fine, wilco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You might consider linking these two short paragraphs into one: "On 28 April, John Jackson was shot down and killed while leading the interception of a Japanese raid. Les took over command of No. 75 Squadron the next day." (both a bit stubby otherwise IMO);
    • Okay, would a semi-colon in place of the full stop suffice? I felt the effect was better having a bit of punch to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes that looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note sure about "he was appointed Wing Leader" (again the position "Wing Leader" seems incorrect to me but I'm not an expert on the RAAF - if thats what the sources say then no dramas); and
    • See above ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Seen. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you able to add the OCLC for the Odgers reference (all the others either have an ISBN or OCLC)?
    • Heh, thought I'd got them all, wilco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• 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):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • IMO this article easily meets the GA criteria and there a just a couple of minor prose issues above that need to be addressed before I finalise the review. Please have a look at my suggestions and let me know how you go. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Many thanks as usual for taking the time to review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the quick response, all issues taken care of. Happy to pass for GA. Well done again Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)