Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Richard Williams (RAAF officer)

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.

[edit] Richard Williams (RAAF officer)

Self-nom: this article is currently rated B-Class and has undergone a peer review which produced some useful observations and modifications. Believe it's ready for A-Class and would be aiming for FA if it passes the next hurdle, so any comments that could help to achieve that end are very welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good text flow, good lead, good use of images, well referenced

Images

• Recommended that free images use the {{information}} template to ensure that all of the required information is in place
• Ensure that images tagged as {{PD-because}} are properly tagged
• Image:Richard Williams.jpg is marked simply as public domain and has no source; ensure this is correct, update it or find another image

References

• The References section uses citation templates; very good use
• But, the actual cites are a mix—some use templates and some don't; templates should be consistently applied

Content

• "Air force" is used in upper and lower case; ensure this is proper
  • There are a couple of instances where it could be read as either the Air Force or an air force, but none I believe where it could be taken solely as an air force - therefore I've made all instances proper case.
• In several places, ranks not used as a specific title are upper case—normally these would be lower case (this may be one of the British English differences though)
  • I'll admit to not being certain of the standard in WP:MILHIST articles so have consistently used proper case whether it's part of a title or simply mention of the rank in general. Happy to modify if someone can point out the relevant guideline or convention. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You want WP:CAPS, see the lead and Titles.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support — Gadget has pointed out the few problems with this article, but they're all minor stylistic concerns. The article is well-written, has excellent flow, and seems to be lacking any of the spelling or grammar problems that crop up even in FACs. Excellent all the way around. In a general sense, however, if you wish to see this as an FAC, I'd suggest lengthening it some. There's no problems with it, but the article left me wanting more specific details in addition to the wider scope of the RAAF. JKBrooks85 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Gadget's recommendations above, and those should definitely be addressed before nominating this article for FA. I would also recommend not having mid-sentence inline citations, but instead grouping them at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Otherwise, I think it's a complete, well-referenced, informative and well-written article that meets the criteria. Nice work. Cla68 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. What they said In terms of prose, the article is very solid. It seems comprehensive and it is adequately cited. Well done. Woodym555 14:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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.