Talk:Otho Holland Williams/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
There are no disambiguous links. The external links check out fine |here. AWB is down at the moment due to a security change on tehh mediawiki servers so I couldn't check it with AWB.I checked the images and they look ok. Here are some things I saw that do need to be fixed however. Other than these things the article looks pretty good to me so Ill place it on hold although technically it shoudl probably be failed due to the lack of inline citations.

The lede should be expanded. The Lede should completely summerize the article and currently it doesn't. Done
There is an inline cite in the lede. Using inline citations in the lede is usually discouraged because the info should be in the body of the article and cited. Done
There are several sections of info that do not have inline citations. Done
You need to add the age to the infobox Done
You need to add the persondata template since this is a biography Done
In the references you have pg. and it should be p. for single pages and pp. for multiple pages Done
The see also section should come before the references and footnotes per MOS structure Done
The references should sorted by author last name and alphabetical
In sections such as the Battle of Camden. If you have the link in the text, you should not include it as a main link. Done
I also think the quote boxes should be replaced with {{quote Done

Reviewer: Kumioko (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing improvements

I removed the link in the Battle of Camden section, replaced the quote box with {{quote, and put the book references in order. I will do more later. By the way, how do you put references in alphabetical order?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I added the persondata template, moved the "see also" section, added the age at death to the infobox, moved the reference from the lead section, and expanded the lead section. I still don't know how to arrange the references in alphabetical order and I will search for more references later.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I changed the references from "pg" to "p". I asked the person who made the unreferenced "Southern Campaign" section what his sources were though he hasn't replied yet.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

On the alphabetical organization of footnotes, I have found several good articles on military people which do not require this: Henry Allingham, Edwin Alderson, John Babcock, and John Baskeyfield. Is this a requirement of good articles?

I am still yet to receive a reply from Dashiellx. If he doesn't respond within the next 2 days I will find my own references.- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sounds good and good job so far. I will come back in a couple days to check it again. --Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to the "Battle of Camden" section. I will finish referencing the entire "Southern Campaign" section later this week or during this upcoming weekend.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I added one more reference to the "Battle of Guilford Court House" section. I believe that everything that is in need of further referencing has been referenced. With that complete, all that is left is to organize the footnotes in alphabetical order. I have provided examples above of Good Articles that don't have footnotes organized in that manner. Is this necessary for Good Articles?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]