Talk:Donald Wilson (general)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Well-written and cited; just placing on hold while the items below are addressed...
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- Intro is a little short for GA, would normally expect a couple of paragraphs around the same length as the second one already there. Think a bit more could be said on WWI and his theorising between the wars, for instance, to flesh it out.
Done. Expanded the introduction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Intro is a little short for GA, would normally expect a couple of paragraphs around the same length as the second one already there. Think a bit more could be said on WWI and his theorising between the wars, for instance, to flesh it out.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- The WWII section seems a bit light on, mostly his postings rather than what he did or thought - any further detail here?
- Unfortunately no. It doesn't seem that he had much impact in SWPA. What happened was completely out of line with his pre-war thinking, but this was not changed at all. Kenney may have reduced him to a cipher. I'm a bit suspicious about the circumstances of his recall in March 1944 because Kenney (p. 365) says that he was unwilling to let Wilson go unless he was promoted, but Wilson was not promoted. Wilson's successor, Gene Beebe, doesn't get so much as a mention after he was appointed chief of staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The WWII section seems a bit light on, mostly his postings rather than what he did or thought - any further detail here?
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- I realise a lot of articles have them but I gathered that badges of rank in infoboxes were discouraged; country or service branch flags seemed to be the only generally-accepted images.
- I didn't put it there! They appeared in all the USAAF articles one night. Some wiki-elf is responsible - possibly a bot.
- Same goes for portals. If a portal appears, somebody else put it there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should remove but won't hold up GA on that account... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I realise a lot of articles have them but I gathered that badges of rank in infoboxes were discouraged; country or service branch flags seemed to be the only generally-accepted images.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Won't affect pass/fail but any chance of further illustrations, if not of the man himself then anything related that's discussed in the bio?
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all that, Hawkeye - passed and well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)