Talk:Bockscar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first read, this seems quite good, and clearly ripe for promotion. I've noted a few quibbles below; I've also done a bit of copyediting, so please doublecheck that I haven't inadvertently added any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

• "Bockscar, sometimes called Bock's Car" -- should "Bock's Car" also be italicized here?
• What would you think about adding just a touch more context to the lead or body of the article (or both)-- mentioning, for example, that the nuclear bombing took place during World War II, or that this second bomb effectively ended the war. 95% of readers will already know this, I grant you (or I hope they would), but I think it's generally good practice to give a full context for young or non-Western readers.
• "test drop rehearsals" seems slightly redundant--would just "test drops" do?
• " Gunner, assistant flight engineer" -- should "assistant flight engineer" be capitalized here for consistency with other entries in the list?

Checklist

Will check for "main aspects" and copyright tomorrow.

Sorry, Hawkeye, that I left you hanging on this one; it went right out of my head. Will follow up on the rest of the checklist soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor questions above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	For such a brief article, the lead is a rather long per WP:LEADLENGTH. I have reduced the lead in size. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think a little context would be helpful for the reader--mentioning that all this took place in World War II, for example, or the role of the Fat Man bomb in the war against Japan, or what it meant to be redesigned as a silverplate. But I don't think this rises to the level of not covering "main aspects". I've added a paragraph on Silverplate, but I don't want to get into it too deeply, as it has its own article. Also mentioned the war in the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) I agree. I think what you added is ideal; enough to give the sense of the plane's redesign without all the nuts-and-bolts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA