Talk:John Baskeyfield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

~~What makes http://www.pegasusarchive.org/arnhem/main.htm a reliable source?~~ Removed
~~LIkewise http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/?~~ Replaced
Also, needs Template:Persondata Done

Otherwise looks good. I take it he never married? Siblings?

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth. Thanks for the review and the c/e of the article. I've addressed your concerns below, but haven't struck through them above yet because they're not quite sorted!

Pegasus Archive is a tricky one. It's clearly a personal site, but is extremely comprehensive and well sourced (but unfortunately doesn't use in line references). I remember reading somewhere that the webmaster is primarily interested in the Battle of Arnhem and other airborne operations because his father was a para at Arnhem. There have been the odd discussions about using it between myself and other editors working on airborne articles (it is used for some other Good articles as well), my own policy is to use it if its contents can be supported elsewhere. In this case, that Baskeyfield was a butcher is supported by this source, although not that he was a manager. I'm happy to remove the manager bit and just source it to the BBC, but seeing as the butcher element in general is supported I personally think it's trustworthy. As with several other biographies on the site (some of which are extremely comprehensive), everything else about Baskeyfield is verifiable in several other sources, so I have no personal reason to doubt this particular fact. Beyond the personal life info already in the article I haven't found anything else about him, so I don't know about other family I'm afraid.
I found victoriacross.org on Victoria Cross, where its used as a ref (numbers 5 and 69). As that's a featured article I presumed that would be ok. The site is also used in lots of external links sections in numerous VC winner articles. I know very little about the site personally, but it's information on Robert Henry Cains VC is correct and confirmable with other reliable sources. On this occasion, although I've found the information about the location of Baskeyfield's VC on other sites, this seemed the most reputable.

Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Victoria Cross article being a FA, note that it was promoted in July 2007, over two and a half years ago, and standards on sourcing have risen quite a bit since then. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Although the dispatches are written in regards to FA requirements, they don't differ in any respects from the normal requirements of editing Wikipedia. I'm not saying these sites are unreliable, but they aren't striking me as reliable either. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd have thought the onus should be on an FA to demonstrate its sources are still valid if referencing criteria has changed. I'd like to think that the sources used in any featured article should be acceptable, regardless of when it was promoted, or there is very little hope for anyone in my position looking for reliable sources! No matter though, I went looking for a new ref anyway and found a local newspaper article. I've also reworked the early life section too. Hope this is ok? Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]