Talk:Winton W. Marshall/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow once the Bot checks in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Article is okay. I wouldn't recommend taking it beyond GA though.

• Although his full name is mention ed in the lead, it should also be in the body.
• Similarly, his nickname of Bones is in the infobox, and is covered by ref 1, but should be in the body.
• MOS uses British rather than American ordinals (MOS:ORDINAL) so 32nd not 32nd, 93rd not 93d etc
• Link U.S. Readiness Command, MacDill Air Force Base, second lieutenant, P39, Soviet Union, Bendix Trophy (on first occurrence), Tripler Army Medical Center
• " 335th FS:" should be "335th FIS" but I'd prefer if it were not abbreviated.
• At the start of "Post war" and "Later life", replace "he" with his name.
• "30 to 200 miles" Add conversion template so readers will know how far this is
• Do we have to have so many paragraphs in a row starting with "In <date>"?
• Two different date formats used in the references. Recommend using mdy consistently (although US military bios should use dmy (WP:STRONGNAT)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the article by following the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh points that you have mentioned. Toadboy123 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Made additional updates as per your recommendations. However, I am not familiar in using of conversion template for the miles part. Is it possible if you can provide assistance to me for that part only. Toadboy123 (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Made the change for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it 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. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.