Talk:John Emilius Fauquier/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Second World War section, "By February 1942", "In September 1943", and "During January 1944" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1942, 1943, and 1944.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead seems a bit short, can more info. be added to summarize the entire article? The article has a "red link", if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.
Seems fine and check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. Also, for the book sources, use {{cite book}}.
Half-check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
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:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I changed the web citations to citeweb. I think the book citations were all citebook with the exception of the book quoted in the webpage. Added to the lead and (hopefully) added some commas where appropriate. I probably introduced more punctuation errors than I fixed. :) Protonk (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems fine, but Reference 14 needs to be fixed with the proper cite web format. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it is definitely non-traditional, as "quoted in" citations vary widely. :| Protonk (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. :P After reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Protonk who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]