Jump to content

Talk:William Sterling Parsons/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk contribs count) 01:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Watch for Brit vs. American English. Storey is one that I caught. This is awkward: codename modification of B-29s to carry the bombs. Think there's a typo here: And every day you say on your voyage. Missing a word here: Commander, Cruiser Division 6, despite having commanded a ship.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Who's the publisher of Furer?
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    What real significance is there to the medal citations?
    B. Focused:
    Link time fuze and anti-aircraft. Howitzers are used against ground targets, not aerial ones. This reads awkwardly as a result: However in late 1943, the Army obtained permission for it to be used over land, and a version was developed that could be used with howitzers. It proved particularly effective against the V-1 flying bomb over England, and later Antwerp. Is the bit about his secretary really important?
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  1. Corrected typos
  2. Added publisher. It isn't in the book, but I tracked it down.
  3. Links added. Re-ordered the stuff about the various types of VT fuzes. Hope it reads better now. The bit about the secretary is interesting. I wanted to tell the reader about the US Navy's role in the Manhattan Project, but without exaggerating its importance. I think the bit about his secretary puts things in a proper perspective. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]