Talk:Jesse L. Brown/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Don't capitalize naval unless it's a proper noun.

   Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

   Don't you mean "his"? the schools closer to this family were lower-quality

   Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Title capitalization in Ecker needs to be fixed. And DMY.

   Fixed. —Ed!^(talk)

   Actually, your changes here made it worse. The major words of the subtitle need to be capitalized. And fix the spelling of casualties. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

   I fixed it as far as I am aware of the policy (capitalized the beginning of each phrase and the proper nouns. If this isn't the correct format I don't know what is. —Ed!^(talk) 00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

   You should have used Smith as your model; every significant word is capitalized, plus the first word. I did it for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   How could his enlistment end on 15 April and he remain in the Navy?

   Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fixed everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)