Talk:Arthur W. Radford

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur W. Radford article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Arthur W. Radford is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 27, 2016.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 31, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
January 23, 2013	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
March 16, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: Aviation / Biography / Maritime / North America / United States / World War I / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military biography task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Aviation: Biography

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the aerospace biography project.

Chicago Mid‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will read through and start the review proper tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article - minor points below, will put on hold. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - looks good, will mark up as GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

"**** Admiral" (the four star icon) in the infobox on my screen looked rather like someone had redacted an expletive! Might just be the way my mind works though (if it were admiral, then the stars, it might be clearer though)
- Yeah, those have occasionally been a problem. Removed that image altogether. —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In this post he saw his first wartime duty during World War I." - this sentence is ambiguous (it could mean that he saw his first wartime duty, during WWI, or that this was the first of his WWI duties)
- Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and tours Stateside" - I'd have gone for "and tours in the U.S." (or similar) as Stateside is a term specific to US English.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"dawn to dusk six days a week" - are we sure this is what was meant? (dawn to dusk in December being fairly short - 07:30 to 17:00, which aren't outrageous hours, even allowing for modern Beltway traffic!)
- That's what the source said, and I found it's too difficult to attach better times to it. I put it in quotes so you know it's from the source. —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Radford sought heavily to integrate" - minor, but you could lose the "heavily" here.
- Done. —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The first major operations in the Central Pacific would begin soon thereafter." > "The first major operations in the Central Pacific began that November."? (Avoids the reader having to move back a section to establish the chronology)
- Done. —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Appears neutral at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Tagged correctly. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Really minor, but "Radford (right) with Captain Joseph J. Clark aboard Yorktown in October 1943." - is this a full sentence? (I'm not sure its got a verb) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, that's valid. Corrected it. Thanks very much for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admirals of the World

This source, which is cited in a number of places in the article, cites Wikipedia and risks being a circular reference. Can the statements sourced to it be sourced to other places? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Bath ribbon

The solid red center ribbon in the lower row of the admiral's ribbon rack looks like a modern Good Conduct Medal ribbon, which puzzled me since his bio doesn't list prior enlisted service. It turns out it's the Order of the Bath ribbon which is quite uncommon in the U.S. military. Probably too detailed to be included in the article but thought I'd mention it here anyway. - Brianhe (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good read

I just read this article and it was a "good read" so wanted to say --thanks and keep up the good work, Otr500 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]