Talk:Rodger Young/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zawed; I'm new to this, if love a day or two to address these comments. Cheers, -- puddleglum^2.0 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I will put the review on hold. Ping me if you have any questions about my comments and/or when you are ready for me to look at this again. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

On an initial pass, I see a few issues although none that would be insurmountable.

• There is a cite in the lead. Since the lead should be a summary of the body of the article, which should already be full cited, there is no need for anything in the lead to be cited. I also note that the citation should be for page 111, not 117, otherwise it doesn't support what is in the lead.

•  Done removed. -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also, in relation to the lead, it should also be made clear that Starship Troopers is fictional - TBH, I think it is borderline trivia for the lead anyway.

•  Done replaced. -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest breaking the military service section by adding a subsection for World War II (suggest at the point In 1942,... Then, rather than having an awards section, combine it with the World War II section. The mention of his burial can then follow the discussion of the Medal of Honor.

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Young ignored the lieutenant's order...: suggest rephrasing to "Young ignored his commander's order..." as it is not been established that the lieutenant is the patrol commander.

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Because of his actions,... suggest combining this sentence with the preceding paragraph.

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are a few things that aren't cited. I have added tags in the affected places. You will also need to cite a source for the purple heart.
  • The purple heart is awarded to all soldiers killed in action to my knowledge; aren't citations for things that could be reasonably challenged? -- puddleglum^2.0 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, everything needs to be verifiable. Zawed (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Do we know if the MoH was ever presented to his family and when?

•  Done January 1944 -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• In 1949, Young's remains... Where was he buried initially?

• I couldn't find any mention of that. -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest reordering the legacy section and doing away with the bulletpoints. I think it is better to discuss the tangible/physical memorials first and then have the cultural stuff (song/Starship troopers) close out this section. According to the Ohio history cite, there is a park named for him as well.

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Home of Heroes cite doesn't work for me nor does the United States Army Center of Military History cite

• Not quite sure why - it works fine on my end, and I tried multiple different devices. -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• List all the book sources in the references section, e.g. Heinlein, Leff

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I will have a closer review of the actual text once the above has been addressed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zawed: ok, I've finished it up, with only one or two minor questions. I had more time than I foresaw. Thanks! -- puddleglum^2.0 15:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zawed: not sure the ping went through. Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at this again. There are still some issues:

• Earwig copyvio tool shows a high level of copyright violations due to the similarities to the togetherweserved.com and militaryhallofhonor.com websites. The MoH citation is OK to stay as it is as there will be no copyright in that but some of the article text will need to be rejigged quite considerably.

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 18:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Shadowbox website that you cite doesn't seem to add anything that the military hall of honor website doesn't. As the Shadowbox website seems a little flaky in terms of credibility I suggest losing it. If you keep it, the refs can be consolidated as currently refs 4, 7, 10, 11 and 16 all point to it.

•  Done replaced -- puddleglum^2.0 18:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• What I meant by my comment in relation to the the Home of Heroes cite, it just goes to the homepage - it doesn't go to the Rodger Young page

•  Done Fixed -- puddleglum^2.0 21:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is the text I get for the United States Army Center of Military History cite: "The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."

•  Done removed and replaced. -- puddleglum^2.0 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Leff cite is recited in full in the notes section, it doesn't need to be as it is listed with the other books; just author name,year and pg no needs to be in the notes. Also, add the isbn.

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• The book references need to be consistent in presentation; both Heinlein and Lef lack location. The Heinlein seems to double up on title and it is not clear who Anson is or why the year range is there.

•  Done -- puddleglum^2.0 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Still a bit of work to do here unfortunately. I will check back in a few days. Zawed (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zawed: I believe I've addressed these - what do you think? -- puddleglum^2.0 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0 I may not have been clear in relation to the presentation of Leff so I have tweaked this and also consolidated some refs and date formats. Running Earwig again, I'm still seeing a high probability of copyright issues. See here, you can see clearly the overlap in text in red. Certain phrases are quite common e.g. he was born in but others can be rephrased or use alternative wording to articulate the same point. For example, the text "He was not selected initially, but during practice Young's enthusiasm convinced the coach to let him play occasionally" is flagged as major section of text with issues. This could be rejigged along the lines of "In the early stages of the season he was not part of the playing team, but Young's efforts in practice saw the coach select him for the occasional game". Once this copyvio issue is sorted, I think this should be good for GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Zawed,  Done I believe I've addressed that now; Earwig only shows me small snippets in the article where I couldn't replace the commonly-used clauses and words. Cheers, -- puddleglum^2.0 22:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, I was still uncomfortable with the extent of the overlap so I've had a further go at reducing it. I got it down to 73% and the overlap that remains is primarily due to the MoH citation and the names of units and facilities. I think this is ready to go GA now. I hope this wasn't too painful a process for you. I hope to see more of your military history articles and if you haven't already, I encourage you to check out and get involved in the Milhist project. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I am satisfied this article meets the GA criteria, passing as GA now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)