Talk:David B. Bleak/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I don't think I've had the pleasure of reviewing one of your GA noms yet, so here it goes. This particular article caught my fancy at DYK, and if I remember correctly shouldn't need much work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good
	2c. it contains no original research.	See below
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Accepting that after the war he settled into a citizen's lifestyle, so no problems with the lack of information before his death
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per definition
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One image excluding medals and ribbons, of the subject so clearly relevant
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1a

General

Any reason for the piped link to People's Republic of China and not just China? (Note that "Republic of China", which you had earlier, indicates Taiwan... I doubt they were involved.
- Just clarifying the nation, for anyone who didn't know. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting, as the only ones who would realise that are those reading the Wiki mark up (it's written [[People's Republic of China|Chinese]] Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I've had people in past reviews ask for the political entity, since the name "China" itself could be considered ambiguous. —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Overlinking: United States (country), soldier(?), South Korea (country), hip fracture(?), rancher, dairy farmer, truck driver, and meat cutter
- Nope. Links can appear in the lead and infobox without counting towards overlinking in the prose. I don't see any overlinks now. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to disagree, but not really a big deal. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... fortified Chinese positions. ... Chinese positions" - Any other wordings available?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better. For FAC I'd suggest finding a way to avoid repeating Chinese, but no need for GA.
"...before assisting the wounded, and shielding another soldier from a grenade blast." - Chronology not quite clear; I'm assuming the shielding interrupted his work, but he continued to assist the wounded afterwards.
- Correct. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

"... he dropped out of high school..." - Any idea when?
- Sources don't say, unfortunately. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shame, although an age would be helpful too if available. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... formidable ..." -- Is this a direct quote?
- Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military career

"... the Army..." -- Isn't this general use, and therefore not capitalised?
- No, in this case we're referring specifically to the United States Army as a shortened proper noun. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alrighty. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honor action

"The patrol left United Nations lines at 04:30 on 14 June ..." -- Local time, UTC?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The F Company diversionary attack may have been the action for which Corporal Clifton T. Speicher was himself awarded the Medal of Honor." -- Perhaps as a footnote using {{efn}}
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... as they attempted to continue up the hill. As they attempted to continue up the hill..."
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"According to witness reports, Bleak rushed the trench and dove into it, tackling one Chinese soldier and, with only his hands, broke the soldier's neck, killing him. Bleak was then confronted by a second soldier, whom he reportedly grabbed by the neck, crushing his windpipe." -- Perhaps be consistent, as you indicate that the first soldier was definitely killed but the second one is not clarified. (Both are part of the 5-men kill count)
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... his combat knife." -- Who's?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... its mission...", next sentence "... its mission..." -- Why not change the second one to "... to return to UN lines" or even just "to return"?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... they were ambushed by another hidden Chinese trench..." -- I doubt the trench itself ambushed them. Perhaps "they were ambushed by Chinese soldiers hiding in another hidden trench"
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent life

Overlinking: Aside from those linked above, fishing, cremated
- I don't see any additional links of these. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean that they are fairly simple terms that we assume the average reader to know. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Starting in the mid-1970s, he moved..." - So did his move take several years, or...?
- The info is sparse on exactly when he did which things, only that he held a variety of jobs for the remainder of his life. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps "sometime in the mid-1970s"? A move (if only one) would probably not take several years. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

"... for whom the decoration was not a posthumous recognition" -- Perhaps just "for whom the decoration was not posthumous"?
- "posthumous" as an adjective in this context needs to modify something, so "recognition" is necessary.
  - Sorry, I had forgotten to remove an A. If we write "for whom the decoration was not posthumous", then posthumous refers to decoration. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The others were..." -- "Those recognized after their deaths were...", perhaps?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks much better. A couple minor things though, which I've noted above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1b

Are #Military career and #Medal of Honor action worth merging?
- The action section covered the event in-depth, in this case if they were merged, people would ask why the level of detail suddenly increases drastically. —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2a

Why is the title of the Greenwood source in lowercase?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion for any future FA nom: backing up the WP and history museum sources would be nice, especially since the WP seems to redo their website every few years.
- Yeah, Link Rot is my mortal enemy. Always looking for more book sources to back stuff up, if you know any ;) —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6a

Infobox image needs a new source (tried clicking on it, dead link). Current description page does not have proof that the subject was an employee of the US military.
- Which link do you mean? I don't see any dead links. —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link on the image page was one letter off, fixed. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Mark. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fairly nice, just to do a spotcheck (numbers based on this revision):
FN2

a. Fails verification - Doesn't explicitly say that he worked on the railroads after ranching; no close paraphrasing

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

b. Simple synth, acceptable; no close paraphrasing

c. Passes verification and paraphrasing check

d. Passes verification and paraphrasing check

e. Passes verification, acceptable paraphrasing

f. Passes verification, acceptable paraphrasing

g. Passes verification and paraphrasing check

FN 9

a. Passes verification and paraphrasing check

b. Passes verification and paraphrasing check

AGF on offline sources

This is just a reminder that the article will be failed soon if no action is taken. As the main contributor has not been active for the past week, I'll give a three-day grace period. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think that's everything. Thanks for your patience. —Ed!^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, that's good enough for me. The image was published by the army, although its creator is not indicated. Before going to FAC I'd look into that, but it's good enough for GA. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]