Talk:Paul Wurtsmith

GA Review

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

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

• "Defense of Australia", P4, S1: I'm assuming the they in …but they had more range… is referring to the Japanese fighters? It's not entirely clear.
  •  Done. Re-worded.
• "New Guinea", P3, S3: What kind of plane is a Kittyhawk? It's used in this sentence without explanation here or elsewhere.
  •  Done. P-40 Kittyhawk. My over-familiarity with the subject...
• "New Guinea", P3: What are the "VICTOR" and "OBOE" operations? Any brief bit of context that can be provided?
  • But it does give this information: "the VICTOR series of operations to clear the Southern Philippines that included the Invasion of Palawan, Battle of the Visayas, and the Battle of Mindanao." "the OBOE series of operations against Japanese forces in Borneo." Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • My apologies. It does indeed. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The middle Crave and Cate reference doesn't have a year associated with it. It's the 1950 work cited in the text, right?

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Section "Post-war", P3, last S: What is the relevance of Ella Wurtsmith's "mother of the year" award in this article? (No offense to the Wurtsmith family or Ella herself.)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. 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):

   I'm concerned with the license of File:Major General Paul Wurtsmith.jpg. It's claimed to be an official Army "photograph", but the source website makes no assertion of that sort and is not a U.S. Army or U.S. Air Force website. I'm also concerned that the wording in the lower right corner appears to be an artist's signature and, coupled with the overall qualities of the image, appears to be a painting. Without the artist's name, there can be no way of determining whether this is a free image or not. To be on the safe side, it would be best to assume that this is, in fact, a non-free work of art and to add a fair-use rationale for the article.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a couple of prose issues and one image licensing issue that I found. I made a few minor tweaks to the copy as I went along. One thing I noticed: when referring to a U.S. location by [place_name], [state_name], there is typically a comma inserted after the state name to set it off, since it's basically acting as a disambiguator. Any way, it's a nice article that should easily pass once the above issues are addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)