Talk:William Harper (Rhodesian politician)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers, hope you enjoy it. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
[edit]- Images
- All look appropriate, the fair use one is legit.
- Early life
- "During 1940 he was one of "The Few"—the Allied pilots of the Battle of Britain, in which he flew with No. 17 Squadron and was wounded in action." I know what you're saying here, but it might be more easily understood if broken into two sentences.
- I've redone this whole bit, hope it's okay now. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dominion Party
- "... the opposition Dominion Party (which called for full "dominion" or Commonwealth realm status)." What was the other party's position?
- The governing United Federal Party also aspired to Commonwealth realm status, but the Dominion Party were more radical—kind of like the Conservatives and UKIP in today's British politics. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
That's it. Not much in need of fixing here. I'm looking forward to promoting it. Thanks for writing another good Rhodesia article. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing this and for the kind words. I've replied to each point above. I've expanded the RAF service part quite a bit, maybe have another look to be sure. I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed the article. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It all looks good and I'm glad to pass it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I'm glad you like it. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- It all looks good and I'm glad to pass it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)