Talk:Jørgen Jensen (soldier)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 09:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll take this one: looks good at first glance. Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- All (minor) concerns addressed below.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- All refs appropriately formatted
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Sources appear reliable
- C. It contains no original research:
- All information is appropriately cited
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Spot checks turn up clean, Earwig's tool highlights only the citation and common phrases.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Comprehensive enough in the circumstances.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- No tangential material
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Only concern is title, will be addressed soon.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No issues
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Licensing checks out to the best of my ability.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- No issues
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Passing shortly.
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit][1] [2] These results aren't bad enough for me to assume anything but use of common phrases, but it might be a good idea to rephrase nonetheless.
- I think they are just common phrases.
If he was a British subject, but Australian citizenship has not been explicitly mentioned, why is he referred to as Australian?
- All Australians were British subjects until 1949, when separate Australian citizenship was legislated.
"charged for a minor lapse in discipline." rather vague; are more details available?"It was not long before he was in trouble again" slightly heavy editorial voice there...
- provided details, and reworded.
- Much better.
Wondering if the text of the citation might be better as a quote box, given the length of the section. Entirely optional.Confused by "following up the Germans"; is this military speak?
- Yep, following up a withdrawal. Would pursuing be better?
- "pursuing" would definitely be better.
- Done.
"Jensen's actions also freed" this is confusing, because his actions described so far do not do this. Perhaps better as "During the assault Jensen also freed"?
- Done.
"died of war-related causes" again a bit vague.
- there really isn't anything available on this, I've read online sources about him having PTSD and related problems with alcohol, but nothing I'd call reliable.
- Alright, nothing to be done there.
How reliable is the Australian War Memorial as a source? Honest question: I know nothing of it.
- It is the principal military history museum in Australia.
Similarity, what about the National Archive?
- Again, the principal historical archive of Australia, holds all national records.
AGF on the book sources: I don't know enough to evaluate them, and you do.- @Peacemaker67: Solid work. I think that's about all I have,
but for one issue: the title of this article. I don't think it's entirely neutral to use his award in the title (and if that's common practice, we should be looking to change that). Since there are multiple people with his name, the parenthetical should be his occupation; if there's still ambiguity, then nationality and occupation, etc. Vanamonde (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think it is a fairly widely accepted approach to disambiguation of VC recipients. Have a look at Category:Australian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross for other examples, but I'm happy to move him to (soldier).
- I think that would be a good idea, yes. We avoid honorifics in other cases, including for religious and political figures, so I think it's best to do so here as well. Vanamonde (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- G'day Vanamonde93 I'll move it after Legobot runs, so as not to confuse it. I think I'm done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Seems fine, passing shortly. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)