Talk:Oliver David Jackson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 20:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article against the GAN criteria. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A few suggestions

• Overall, this article looks like it is in pretty good shape. I have added a few suggestions below for discussion:

• in the lead, wikilink "New Guinea" and "Middle East" to their respective campaign articles;
• in the lead, add an introductory comma after "In 1966";
• in the lead mention when and where he died (to complete the summary);
• add a paired comma after "London, England";
• in the Early life section, "The family returned to Australia..." This seems to imply that the family went somewhere with the father, but this doesn't seem to be explicitly stated. One assumes the mother joined the father in England (as that is where OD was born, but it doesn't explicitly state this)...Could this be clarified?
• "Transferring to the AIF" --> perhaps "2nd AIF" (as your first mention of the abbrev is in relation to the 1st AIF (with a link provided to that), additionally you might state why, e.g. so that he could serve overseas (like the Militia, the PMF couldn't be deployed beyond Austalian territory);
• "first appointment as a platoon commander" (perhaps wikilink platoon here);
• "fighting the Japanese at Gona" (perhaps reaim the wikilink here to Battle of Buna-Gona;
• "In June 1944 he took up a position" (introductory comma after "In June 1944);
• I wonder if subheadings could be added to the Military career section;
• "On 21 June 1956, Jackson assumed..." (perhaps work some link to the Korean War here to provide some context about why 1 RAR were in Korea. For instance, "On 21 June 1965, in the aftermath of the Korean War, Jackson assumed...")
• Introductory comma after "In 1959...":
• Same same with "In 1961..."
• "Following the arrival of Australian ground forces in May 1965..." (arrival where? this is only implied, not specified. This might be solved by mentioning the "Vietnam War" explicitly)
• Introductory comma after "In March 1966..."
• add a hyphen here: "two battalion brigade" --> "two-battalion brigade";
• add a comma in front of this "which established 1 ATF's dominance over the province" (before "which")
• add an introductory comma after "In June 1967";
• "His final posting was as the Chief of Staff at Headquarters 1st Division, before retiring in May 1974" (perhaps work in that his final rank was brigadier);
• in the Later life section, do we know what he died of? If nothing is written about this, no worries, but please let me know that you have looked for this;
  • Unfortunately no. There is actually not a lot written about this guy. As he died in 2004 the ADB entry for him won't be written for many years. Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, perhaps you could write it. If you contact them, they may be interested. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• in the Later life section, do we know when the children were born and names? As above.
  • Also no I'm afraid. Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, had to check. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• in the References, Horner is authorlinked, so Bean probably could be too for consistency. I don't know if any of the others have articles, but if they do, they should be linked too. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Done most of these, pls have a look and let me know if the changes address your points. As always thanks for taking the time to review. Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • All points above addressed satisfactorily. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • The article represents what is covered in the body of the literature that exists on the topic.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues found.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues found.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • The article uses only one image, which is under a fair use claim. As the subject is decreased, this seems reasonable to me. If at a later date a free image can be found, the non free image should be replaced, but currently it seems acceptable for how it is being used. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Your changes look good. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)