Talk:Charles Crombie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status, prinicipally a couple of prose issues. The article now has seven days to address these problems, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

I'm not convinced that in the sentence "His servitude with the regiment was to last until 1938" the word servitude is used correctly. Can this be rephrased?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the "South East Asia" section has prose problems: the issues really lie with "Crombie flew his aircraft towards the group in an effort to assault the formation. His initial attack, however, drew fire from the bombers, setting Crombie's starboard engine ablaze.[4][5] Despite this, he pushed ahead with the attack", which has a lot of redundancy. A better way to put it might be "Crombie flew his aircraft towards the group but his initial attack drew fire from the bombers, setting the starboard engine ablaze.[4][5] Despite the damage, he pushed ahead with the attack". What do you think? I see hints of similar problems in the text, but this is the worst example.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Thank you very much for the review, Jacky. I think I have now rectified both issues outlined. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work, article is avery nice biography and I have no further concerns. Passes GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)