Talk:John T. Hayward

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Hawkeye7 in topic Contradictory
Good articleJohn T. Hayward has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Untitled

edit

Not sure that I'd bother quoting medal citations that weren't combat or Manhattan Project related. At his pay grade, Legions of Merit and the like are common end of tour awards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:John T. Hayward/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Clear.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Looks fine at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

(c) it contains no original research.

None spotted.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

All good.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

All good.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Contradictory

edit

This article states he flew the first "Little Boy pumpkin bomb" aboard a Neptune off a carrier. Pumpkin bombs (if you believe the wiki article linked from this page) were dummy Fat Man bombs - a "Little Boy pumpkin bomb" would thus appear to be a contradiction in terms. Unless verified that inert Little Boy bombs were also called pumpkin bombs with some suitable reference, this should probably be reworded as inert Little Boy bomb, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

For a start, there already is a suitable reference in the article, Hayward & Borklund 2000, p. 183. If you'd checked it, you would have found the reference to a Little Boy pumpkin. Here is a picture of one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply