Talk:William C. Chase/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead should be trimmed to four paragraphs. Since several of the paragraphs are short, it should be relatively easy to combine them without having to rewrite.
   • Lead, current P2: Most of us in WP:MILHIST know what the Western Front is referring to, but you shouldn't assume that everyone reading this article will know that that was durig WWI. Likewaise, the wars in …between the wars… should be noted, even if it's just something like …between the world wars…
   • A parenthetical explanation of what the calcaneus should be added for context.
   • I know Chase's memoirs are used as a reference and listed in the Bibliography section, but since they are explicitly mentioned in the text, it would be nice to give the title of the book

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

   • Just an observation (which won't affect whether this passes the GA review): It seems like majority of the article is sourced to Chase himself, and all but one cite to Army/DoD sources. There's nothing that I see as POV, but it might be nice to see if there are any works out there (for future A-Class or FA candidacies) that can provide a non-military-affiliated viewpoint.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a few minor prose issues and the lead issue. I see no reasons why this won't pass once those items are addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes all look good, so I'm passing. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)