Talk:Alvin Luedecke/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• the external link checker reports one dead link: [1]. If possible, can this be rectified? If not, its not really a drama;
  • I agree that the link checker says that it is dead; but it isn't! I just tried it right off the link checker page and it downloads okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok. It doesn't seem to want to work for me, but I sometimes have that affect on technology. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• the article jumps from growing up on the ranch to graduating with a degree. Is anything known about early education, e.g. high school, etc? No dramas if the sources don't mention it, but I have to ask;
  • Regrettably not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Luedecke was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the field artillery on 28 May 1932, and was posted to Camp Bullis, Texas, on Reserve Officers' Training Corps duty". I assume this means that Luedecke undertook ROTC while at university? If your sources say this, it could possibly be added in as it would explain what his initial military training was;
  • By "duty" I presumed that he was an instructor. It is highly likely that he was in the ROTC at Texas A&M, as this would have been the normal route to a reserve commission. But my sources do not say so. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• "became a second lieutenant in the United States Army Air Corps on 20 February 1935" - was this as a "regular" officer or reserve?
  • As a reservist. Tried to re-word this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Might confuse the reader though. After receiving their reserve commissions, air corps officers normally served for four years on active duty. In Luedecke's case, he recieved a regular Air Corps commission in 1938. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Luedecke was posted to the 11th Bombardment Squadron at Hamilton Field" - was this as a pilot? If so, this should possibly be added;
  • Almost certainly but... Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• the Distinguished Service Medal is listed in the infobox, but not in the prose: do we know what he received it for? As it appears to be the highest award that the subject received, it would be good to mention this in the article;
  • What we know is that it was after 1952 and before 1958. Either for the AFSWP or JTF-7. Do you want a citation in the infobox? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, it would probably be best in this case. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• inconsistent presentation: "Texas A&M University" (in lead) and "Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas" (in Early life). If the later became the former, perhaps it could be made consistent;
  • Yes, that is correct. Standardised on "Texas A&M" Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• the lead and infobox say "President of Texas A&M University", but the body says: "He became acting president for seven months after the death of Earl Rudder in 1970. He then served as executive vice president for six years". This seems inconsistent to me, but I might have misunderstood;
  • Not sure. All the sources consider him president although he was only acting. eg Office of the President - History of the Office Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• are you sure that citation # 3 "Blogspot" is a reliable source?
  • It is from people who knew him personally. It is only used for the names of his parents. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries, if you plan to take the article further, though, it will probably be questioned, but your reasoning seems sound to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• "File:Alvin Luedecke.jpeg" - the date field on the image description page says "20 August 2011", but shouldn't it be when the photo was actually taken (which was in this case presumably the 1950s)? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Have not got an actual date, but between 1951 and 1958. Added this to the pic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot) c (Alt text) d (Copyright)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• 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:

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail: