Talk:Charles J. Loring Jr./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

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

Technical review

Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
Disambiguations: three dab links [3]:
- Fighter
- Air University
- RAF Kingsnorth
  - Fixed dabs. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linkrot: External links check out [4] (no action required).
Alt text: Some images lack alt text [5] (suggestion only).
Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues [6] (no action required).

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
- "Loring rose to the rank of Major...", this should be be "Loring rose to the rank of major..." per WP:SURNAME.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems a little awkward to me: "...Loring was working administrative duties...", perhaps consider "...Loring was working in an administrative role...".
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is unclear to me: "He entered service in the same town at age 23." Do you mean he enlisted?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "...and as a Private joined the Army Air Corps...", should be "...and as a private joined the Army Air Corps...", per WP:SURNAME.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Couple of issues here: "...he had been selected as an aviation cadet at the USAAF pre-flight..." Firstly I'm fairly sure the USAAF wasn't formed until 1947. Secondly the abbreviation USAAF needs to be formally introduced at first use.
  - We're talking about the US Army Air Corps. Fixed it. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "...commissioned as a Second Lieutenant...", "...commissioned as a second lieutenant...", per WP:SURNAME.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The end of one paragraph and the start of the next paragraph are fairly similar constructions, making them repetitive: "After graduating, Loring was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Army Reserve with a pilot rating. After graduation in December 1942, Loring was assigned...", perhaps reword one?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clumsy wording here IMO: "...a defense force of the Panama Canal and Caribbean Sea areas...", consider: "a force tasked with defending the Panama Canal and Caribbean Sea areas." (suggestion only)
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "During this time, Loring flew primarily...", this would be better as "During this time, Loring primarily flew..."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It briefly moved to Scribner, Nebraska as part of this duty." Which duty?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In March of 1944, Loring...", perhaps more simply "In March 1944, Loring..."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Following the success of the Overlord operation...", perhaps more simply "Following the success of Overlord..." (suggestion only)
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there a few missing words here: "Loring continued to fly air support missions for the conflict..."? Consider "Loring continued to fly air support missions for the remainder of the conflict.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "By December, he had flown 55 combat missions in World War II...", in World War II seems redundant. Consider: "By December, he had flown 55 combat missions..."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about the capitalisation here: "spent six months as a German Prisoner of War...", should this be "prisioner of war"?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word here I think: "...he was told a T-6 Texan flying over...", perhaps consider "...he was told that a T-6 Texan flying over..."
  - The word is redundant in standard context. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word here too I think: "He was also told the artillery concentration...", consider "He was also that told the artillery concentration..."
  - Again, in context the word doesn't add anything. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And here: "...it was also announced the newly built Air Force Base...", perhaps consider "...it was also announced that the newly built Air Force Base..."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Repetition here: "After his death, Loring's high school created a display in its alumni room dedicated to Loring. (specifically Loring used twice in the same sentence).
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider being more specific here: "Loring was the fourth and final member of the US Air Force to be awarded the Medal of Honor in the war...", for instance "Loring was the fourth and final member of the US Air Force to be awarded the Medal of Honor during the Korean War..."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- All major points cited using WP:RS.
- Consistent citation style used throughout.
- No issues with OR.
- Ecker lacks place of publishing.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional comments: Throughout November, the UN forces had been launching Operation Showdown against two targets: Triangle Hill and Sniper Ridge, northwest of Kunwha, 20 miles (32 km) north of the 38th Parallel. North Korean and Chinese artillery there posed an especially serious threat to ground troops of the US 2nd Infantry Division operating in the area. Are you sure it was US 2nd Infantry Division, not ROK 2nd (or ROK 9th?) Infantry Division? US 2nd Infantry Division was never involved in Operation Showdown. Jim101 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks Jim. Anotherclown (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major aspects appear to be covered without being too detailed.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues here.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
- All recent edits look constructive.

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:
- File:Charles J Loring.jpg lacks a number of details including author and date, are these available?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
- A few prose and MOS points above, otherwise this looks quite good. Pls feel free to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Made all the fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Passing now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]