Talk:Stanley Goble/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I have elected to review this article under the Good article criteria and should have any comments posted up within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note I have previously edited this page, however I have not made any significant contributions. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have now completed reviewing this article against the criteria, and although I am not yet prepared to list it as a Good Article it doesn't have far to go and I am placing it on hold. The areas of concern that are currently preventing promotion are listed below, and I will provide a space of seven days for these issues to be addressed or at least evidence that improvements are in the works. Well done so far, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
"He died at the age of 56, two years after his retirement from the Air Force in 1946." - this sectence is a little cofusing. It partly gives the meaning he retired in 1946 and died in 1948 (which is what was intended), but also partly appears to convey he died in 1946 after retiring in 1944.
How does "He died in 1946, at the age of 56, two years after his retirement from the Air Force." sound?
Sounds good to me.
Done.

"Goble was a founder member of No. 8 Squadron RNAS" - founder doesn't sound right. Do you mean founding?
Heh, I originally wrote it as "founding", but someone changed it and I wasn't fussed - I think both are correct so no prob either way.
Founder just doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's just the repetition of the "er", but I guess which ever is the consensus is the correct.
Done.

Ranks are not proper nouns, and are only capitalised when attached to a person's name.
I don't have a strong feeling on this except for consistency a) within an article and b) with other similar articles. With articles I've worked heavily on like George Jones and Richard Williams, I applied the same standard and they were passed for FA- and A-class noms, respectively - same with similar B-class ones. Do you know if lower case is written in policy anywhere, since precedence could point to either convention?
As far as I know, it isn't written in any policies, however I have seen many people decapitalise ranks that are not attached to names on the grounds that they are not proper nouns.
I have too but, if you can live with it, prefer to leave as is here given reasons above and the fact that even articles on ranks, e.g. Flight Lieutenant, capitalise.
Fair enough; it's only a minor issue anyway.
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):
The article is very well written, and broad in coverage in most areas, however in some sections it appears to be quite short and lacking detail. Such as:
In the "Early career" section, although not required, would it be possible to include Goble's date of birth and to whom? Also, is there any information on his education? What school(s) he attended?
Not schooling, I'm afraid, but can do the parents/origins. Prefer not to do DOB there as it's not standard and I leave it out of all similar articles, if that's okay.
If you prefer to leave out his DOB, that's fine. It's a shame that information on his schooling is unavailable, but would you be able to add about his parents/origins?
Done.

Is it available why he was awarded the Croix de guerre? Also, would it be possible to clarify which country it was from? (France or Belgium?)
Again, nothing specific on that. I assume it's French Croix as the Belgian one is usually qualified by the country name and this one isn't - but not putting that in as it's only an assumption.
I would also lean more towards the French as it is more common, and I'm pretty sure that in the lead portrait it is the ribbon of the French varient. However, if there is no conclusive reference to support this, it is best not to be added.
Agreed.

Perhaps expand on why he was awarded the DSO and OBE, if possible.
Nothing on OBE but DSO citation is quoted briefly in the body and in full in the footnotes.
Fair enough on the OBE, and I understand what you mean on the DSO, but after reading the citation for the DSO, the quote in the body just doesn't quite seem to cut it. However, I will relent on the DSO due to the citation being included in the notes section if you are satisfied with it presently.
Expanded on DSO a bit in the body.

Would it be possible to expand on Caldwell's court-martial? As in, what exactly Goble decided/ruled, etc?
The ruling is easy enough, the direct role Goble himself played and what he said may not be but I'll see what I can turn up.
Done.
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:

Thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Founder member" seems perfectly usual usage to me. Full citations for DSC and DSo are in the related footnotes - more could be pulled into the article proper. The Gazette wouldn't cough up the permision to wear for the Croix de guerre, so it's unclear whether it was Belgian or French - the squadron seems to have been based at Dunkirk, so French might be more likely. I don't know of any source that records why foreign decorations were given - the Gazette entry merely records that permission to wear was granted. It does appear that The National Archives (UK) holds his WWI service record - but RNAS officer records haven't been digitised, so I'd have to try and order the original doucment to ascertain if there were anything useful in there, and being a priamry source we begin to run into the problem of original research in any case. David Underdown (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my mistake and adding a note on the AAF, David. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just another quick comment, in the name of consistancy, would it be possible to present the reference assess dates in the same style, rather than two differing varients? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, David. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all areas of concern having now been addressed, I am please to promote this excellent article to Good Article status. Congratulations! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time to review, mate, the article is better for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]