Talk:James McCudden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 19:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Down to the "Back to the frontline" section - will continue later. Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Finished the rest, not much else to add. Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "The McCudden's" - the apostrophe is not correct.

   Foreign words like "Luftstreitkräfte" should be italicized.

   Think I caught the rest - a few German ranks in the prose weren't italicized.

   Why is "down out of control" italicized in the Death section?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The list of pilots who surpassed his kills at the end of the Victories 8-57 section needs a citation.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't know that the fates of his brothers is important enough for the introduction.

   I'd also say that many of the details of his family in the early life section are too off topic. For example, what relevance does the fact that Amelia McCudden died in 1955 have for James?

   It is a biography. And virtually all of it is related to flying and the military in some way. Dapi89 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

   Well yes, but information that would be appropriate for a biography will not always be useful in a biographical encyclopedia article - the two are not the same. Sure, it's worthwhile to mention McCudden's brothers who also served in the RAF during the war, or any events in the lives of his siblings that affected him personally (for instance, the death of his sister's husband aboard HMS Princess Irene), but Maurice's colitis or his surviving widow and daughter are not at all relevant. For instance, the FA on Werner Mölders only mentions his brother Victor in the context of having been shot down and taken prisoner.

   As an analogy, it would not be relevant to add a fairly detailed description of the fate of SMS Goeben to the article on its sister ship SMS Moltke. On the other hand, one would expect to discuss the fate of Bismarck in the Tirpitz article, since the outcome for the former directly affected how the latter was employed.

I've cut some of the particulars out. I don't think shortening the information on his family is helpful. It is a biography and it doesn't ramble. It is concise and remains, on the whole, a description of the air mindedness in the McCudden family which is entirely relevant. Dapi89 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Why was he awarded the Croix de guerre? The engagement with Immelmann?

   Who knows. He said it was awarded for gallantry as described. The citation itself is no longer around. Dapi89 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

   Fair enough.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Most of the images need US copyright tags - Wikimedia servers are in the US, so we must follow US copyright law. Some also need sources, including the photos of the crashed German reconnaissance aircraft, and the photo of the Gotha needs the author, including date of death.

   Any progress on these? If you can track down a pre-1923 publication date, {{PD-US-1923}} will be fine.

   German recon aircraft has been sorted. Both pictures (the other the SE5 with spinner) were taken by McCudden. He is a person who both took these pictures during the course of his duties and died before 1923. The photographer of the 1913 picture of him is unknown. The main photograph is a well-known and used image of him (an official portrait). Dapi89 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

   Ok, the pictures McCudden took are fine, since the 70-year term expired in 1988 (and since they were already out of copyright when the URAA was passed, their copyrights in the US were not extended). Those just need the {{PD-URAA}} tag and should credit McCudden as the author. The URAA tag should also apply to the official photo, since that should be covered by Crown copyright, which only lasts for 50 years.

   File:Gotha G IV na Lawicy.jpg - this isn't the greatest photo, but it's fine copyright-wise to replace the photo of the Gotha if you like. We can probably get someone to remove the yellow tint and crop the caption bar as well.

It is okay but the article is crowded enough. It looks better without. Dapi89 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: