Talk:Roscoe Charles Wilson/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 12:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Progression

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

Technical review

edit
  • Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required)
  • Linkrot: One External link reports as dead [4].
    • "Biographical data on Air Force General Officers"
  • Alt text: images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • This article is quite well written and I could find no major issues with prose or MOS.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • All major points cited using WP:RS
    • No issues with WP:OR as far as I can see.
    • One minor point: in the infobox you list his years of service as 1928-1961, however in the text you say he entered West Point in 1924. Wouldn't his military service then have started in 1924?
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    • Article seems to cover all major aspects of the subjects life and career.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation):   b (all significant views):  
    • No issues with POV.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
    • No issues here.
  • 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':  
    • Images are both PD and seem appropriate for the article.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:  
    • This article easily meets the GA critera in my opinion, so I am happy to pass it. There is a minor technical point above regarding a dead link and the issue of the service dates in the infobox, but none of these prevent the article's promotion. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply