Talk:William R. Purnell/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 17:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   Copy edit revealed no major concerns with the prose.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead is a bit too short given the size of the article. My suggestions: incorporate a bit of material on his supervision of the Manhattan Project and/or mention his awards. The other MoS criterion are met.

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   Article has sources for all content, all verifiable.

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   Sources are high quality books and periodicals. Spot checks reveal no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing. Citation bot, Checklinks, and Reflinks found no issues. No technical errors were spotted in the referencing mark-up.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   We could use a bit of general info on why they went to Tinian please.

   B. Remains focused:

3. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Hi Hawkeye! A nice article that only needs a couple things for a pass. The article has been placed on hold for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've expanded the introduction, and the section on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay good. I am passing to GA. Best wishes and congratulations, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)