Talk:Bill King (Royal Navy officer)
|WikiProject Biography / Military||(Rated GA-class)|
|Bill King (Royal Navy officer) 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.|
- It is reasonably well written:
- Not Yet
- The Lead needs to be expanded. It should be a brief summary of the entire article, including more details about his entire life. Done
- Watch out for double linkins, there are a few terms (South Africa, World War II, some of the dates, etc.) which are linked to more than once. Done
- There are also a lot of redlinks which are distracting. They should be linked to somethine else or removed entirely. Done
- There are several places where details are included in the article in parenthises. They sould be somehow incorperated into the test in a sentence format, overusing parenthises is poor form. Done
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Pass definately not a problem.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Pass No problems there.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass no problems there.
- It is stable:
- Not Yet just solve the above issues and this will be fine.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Pass Though I would highly recommend that a photograph of him be posted.
If the article writer doesn't show up (hasn't edited in some time), then I'll so what I can to fix the article myself. I'll wait a few days though. Wizardman 01:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Warships are I beleive held to be automatically notable, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to unlink them, the redlinks will turn blue - these are being fairly actively worked on. David Underdown (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, alright. If the article are created we could re-link them, or link a couple at a time. Wizardman 00:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll do #4 tonight and #1 tomorrow. Sorry I'm taking so long. Wizardman 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well done. Two more minor things about the lead, and the article is good to go:
- There shouldn't be any refs in the lead (sorry I apparently forgot to mention this) so that detail that has the refs attatched to it should be put in one of the article's sections (and if it is already there, then just remove the refs because they are redundant in both the lead and the body.
- Links should appear in the article the first time they are mentioned. The things now mentioned in the lead (HMS Snapper, circumnavgation, etc) that have links should now have the links, and those places lower in the article where the links appear should have them removed.
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
- Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
- If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
- Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)