Talk:Henry Allingham/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

This looks quite a reasonable article, well apart from that {{citation needed}} flag. I will now review that article in some depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation fixed.--Molly Mockford (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the appropriate citation, removing the "Citation needed" tag - but mjroots has now removed the citation again, although without replacing the "Citation needed" tag. Either the tag was necessary, in which case the citation was necessary - or it wasn't. But if the "Citation needed" tag was getting in the way of GA status, I think it only right and appropriate to have the citation in place.--Molly Mockford (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears that the in-line citation at the end of the sentence provides adequate WP:verification for the whole sentence. So I will not persue this any more.Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm likely to award this article GA-status as it appears to be of the right standard. Before that I'm going to list a few minor points that could do with some attention:

Pre-First World War -

This could do with a copyedit. In a single paragraph, it starts with birth, early life, school and first job, and then discusses cricket in 1903-05 and the 2nd Boer War (1889-1903).

Done - rewritten into chronological order. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First World War -

There are several paragraphs of unreferenced text immediately after "His RNAS serial number was RNAS F8317.[10]". They seem to have come from ref 10, so they might as well be referenced.
"Allingham returned to the Home Establishment in February 1919 and was formally discharged to the RAF Reserve on 16 April 1919." also could do with a citation.

Done - refs added Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the Second World War -

The 2nd para is unreferenced, its mostly explanation, but the last sentance - "The Remembrance Sunday in 2006 was the first time since the Cenotaph was erected that First World War veterans were absent" - needs a citation.

Done - refs found for attendances. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like those one and two-sentence paragraphs near the end of this section - they read like bullet points, without the bullet points (invisible bullet points).

Done - paragraphs combined for readability. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering -

This appears to be hybrid of two halfs, linked by the word "engineering". The first half, chronologically, sits between the Second World War and After Second World War sections, whereas the second half really aught to be in with War medals and awards as it covers 21st century awards. This is open to discussion, this is my personal oppinion, I'm not going to Hold or Fail the article over this point.

Done - Section split/ renamed, article now follows in chronological order. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) .... to be continued (tomorrow). Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest living man -

These - "Allingham overtook George Frederick Ives as the longest lived member of the British Armed Forces on 1 November 2007. He was therefore the longest lived British First World War veteran to date. Claude Choules is the only British veteran still alive who could challenge this record" - two claims are unreferenced.

Done - ref found for longest lived member (but not date it happened). Speculation re Choules removed per WP:CRYSTAL. It it happens it can be added in then. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death -

As this section consists of a single short sentence, it aught to be combined with the following section to become Death and funeral.

Done Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:lead -

Looks quite reasonable.

I'm putting the WP:GAN On Hold at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Recent edits have substantially improved the readability of the article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]