Talk:Reginald Judson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Interesting and well written article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• Inconsistent ref formatting - some references use harv and others don't. I'd suggest that you change the templates to harv ref for consistency.

• I think you mean the Gustafson ref, have converted to harv. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Could you also include a concise mention of the actions that he was awarded the VC for in the lead, as those are the actions that result in his notability? Kges1901 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Have revised lead. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: thanks for the review, comments addressed as outlined above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)