Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Whittle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting this article be reviewed for A-Class as I have made some substantial improvements to it over the last few weeks, and I believe it now meets the A-Class criteria. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Looks very good. Only comment I have is that the stats in the infobox be cited. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, what stats? Do you mean his rank, the battles he fought in, etc? If so, I would prefer not to as everything covered in the infobox is expanded upon in the article. Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the years, and I think that they need to be cited (only the years though). Are they right? For one, 1901 is not specifically stated in the article, and it looks like (to me) that it should be 1901–1918, 1921 and 1930. =/ Cheers, Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 00:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-checking my sources, it appears he enlisted in 1899; I have ammended this correctly in both the prose and infobox. I have also split the 1918 and 1921 service years, as you suggested. However, as I stated above, everything in the infobox is covered in the prose and I am reluctant to reference the infobox for both that reason, but also because I have not seen (nor have I had to do) this before; even at FAC. I can understand if this was a battle/campaign, but everything in the infobox is the basic outline of Whittle's service covered in the prose. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the years, and I think that they need to be cited (only the years though). Are they right? For one, 1901 is not specifically stated in the article, and it looks like (to me) that it should be 1901–1918, 1921 and 1930. =/ Cheers, Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 00:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just passed this for GA and I also think it merits the A-Class stamp – detailed, balanced, well written, properly sourced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, the only suggestion I have is that the reflist should be formatted into two columns. Otherwise it looks excellent, good luck with FA. – Joe Nutter 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.