Talk:Jacob Earl Fickel/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 21:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Criteria

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.	Reads well.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article is unusual in that it broke out a 1911 event (Aerial gunnery pioneer) to end the article, dropping it out of chronology with Biography. However, this ordering serves well, as it enhances reader comprehension. It also passes the "fiction" requirement, etc.
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.	Completely cited. I passed cite/linkage to German WP, though I am unfamiliar with requirements of linking to another WP.
	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).	Sources checked out. Unable to read pages through Amazon Book Section's "Look inside" feature.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Spot check reveals only chance duplications of words.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage is acceptable. See comments below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Succeeds.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias detected.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
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.	Public domain material.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant and suitable.
	7. Overall assessment.	While a successful GAN, the article could be improved. The aerial gunnery section is factually true; I take it on trust you have omitted nothing important supplied by your source. However, the present text is ambiguous, and might lead the reader to believe Fickel invented aerial gunnery pretty much all on his own. As Fokker Scourge#Synchronization gear tells, the historical record is more complicated than that. Synchronization gear#History offers a more complete account of the situation. Thanks for the article on Fickel; although I have creating articles on WWI aviation for 12 years, I had never heard of him. I believe that with a bit of work on this article, you have a candidate for an A Class review. I would recommend additional graphics, and fleshing out his life with a few details, if available. Good luck.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]