Talk:Owen Tracey/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources

2. Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. 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);
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• 2a. Has an appropriately formatted list of citations. Consider archiving online sources, but this is not a GA requirement.
• 2b. Sources are cited inline.
• 2c. Most sources are offline, but checks carried out on the Gazette articles, all of which check out fine.
• 2d. Most sources are offline, but checks carried out on the Gazette articles, all of which check out fine.

Images

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

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• 6a. Only one image used: File:274 Squadron RAF Hurricane pilots Egypt WWII IWM CM 136.jpg which has a suitable PD tag.
• 6b. The image is relevant and suitably captioned. Consider adding alt text, but this is not a GA requirement.

Prose

1. Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• 1a. A few minor issues below:
  • "..by the time Tracey gained his wings." – Consider spelling out what this means.
    • I have revised this description. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "..it fought in a number of engagements.." – as zero is a number, try to find something more specific: "several", "tens of"?
    • Went with several. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "Attempting to take off, he had to abort his effort to do so due to his aircraft.." – This gets a bit wordy, I think it would still work if you remove "to do so".
    • Revised. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "..over Dungeness." – Consider adding "in Kent".
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "..west of St David's Head." – Add here, maybe "in southwest Wales".
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "..at the time based at El Amriya in Egypt. At the time the squadron.." – Rephrase to avoid the close repetition of "at the time".
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "During the Battle of Crete, No. 274 Squadron, based at Gerawla at the time.." – This "at the time" can be removed. Also, some explanation of where Gerawla is would be useful.
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1b. Just the one real MOS issue I think:
  • "..of a large Luftwaffe raid.." – Per the MOS, and our article on the Luftwaffe, wrap this (and further mentions of the Luftwaffe) in a {{lang}} tag. Also, consider a brief explanation: "..of a large Luftwaffe (German air force) raid.."
    • I have changed it as suggested but please note that I have been pinged elsewhere in GA/A-Class reviews for having Luftwaffe in italics on the basis it is a well recognised term in English. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. 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.

• 3a. A quick Google doesn't reveal any obvious gaps.
• 3b. Does not go into unnecessary detail.
• 4. Neutral.
• 5. Stable.

Nothing much wrong with this overall. The only point I wasn't really keen on the prose was the first two paragraphs of the Middle East section, when it felt a bit repetitive and bullet pointy, with "at the time", "at the time", "During the", "at the time", "During this time" in close succession. Nice work though. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have responded as above and my edits are here]. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The changes all look good. I'm not convinced that the average layperson now would know what "Luftwaffe" means, but that said my general rule of thumb is that if it appears in the OED then it is fine without italics, and Luftwaffe does indeed appear in the OED. If you take the article onto A/FA reviews, then I won't be too bothered if it gets changed, but it might be worth us having a discussion at MilHist about it sometime to see if we can decide on a standard. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.