Talk:Michael John O'Leary/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I have elected to review this article under the Good article criteria, and should have my initial comments posted within the next hour. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now completed reviewing this article against the criteria, and although I am not yet prepared to list it as a Good Article it doesn't have far to go and I am placing it on hold. The areas of concern that are currently preventing promotion are listed below, and I will provide a space of seven days for these issues to be addressed or at least evidence that improvements are in the works. Well done so far, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

• The lead needs a light copyedit, as it is lacking in punctuation and reads slightly awkward in some areas.

• "During December 1914, O'Leary saw heavy fighting and was Mentioned in Despatches, achieving a promotion to Lance Corporal on 5 January 1915. On 30 January, O'Leary took part preparations for an attack on German positions near Cuinchy on the La Bassée Canal, a response to a successful German operation in the area five days before." - These two sentences do not read well, and need to be re-written.

reworded.

• "He continued to be rewarded for his service, being advanced to a commissioned rank as a second lieutenant with the Connaught Rangers,[8] and also being awarded a Russian decoration, the Cross of St. George (third class).[9]" - This sentence reads as if he was awarded the Cross of St. George due to either his fame, or service in recruitment.

reorganised the paragraph.

• The first mention of O'Leary's wife and children is in the "Later life" section. Do you know when the pair were married, children born, etc, that could be included earlier in the article.

I've got nothing. I found it odd too that the sources I was using only mention them at this point but I'm afraid I have nothing more to go on at this stage.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is rather unusual. But, if that is all that is available then that's all that's available. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "O'Leary was buried at Mill Hill Cemetery following a funeral service at the Roman Catholic Annunciation Church in Burnt Oak which was attended by an honour guard from the Irish Guards and six of his children, including two sons awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses in the Second World War." - This sentence also reads slightly awkward, and would it be possible to mention about O'Leary's children earlier?

reorganised.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The final paragraph under the "Later war service" section is unreferenced, and needs to be.

Whoops, somehow missed that. Done.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other comments

The following comments are not required to pass GAN, but are general comments on article improvement.

• As in the text it is referred to in the British/Commonwealth variant of "First World War". Perhaps consider changing the section heading from "World War I service" to either "First World War" or "First World War service".

Done.

• In the infobox, you have O'Leary's service years in the style "XX to XX". Maybe the use of an ndash would be more appropriate?

Done.

• Speaking of the infobox, consider including O'Leary's Mention in Despatches and Cross of St. George in the awards section along with his VC.

Done.

I just swapped around the order of the Mention in Despatches and Cross of St. George in the infobox so as to keep the British honours together. But, feel free to revert if you prefered it the other way. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, thats fine.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, let me know if there are any further problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing further. A very well written and interesting article that has now passed GAN. Congratulations! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)