Talk:Lester Brain

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lester Brain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

Well written

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

no WP:MOS concerns

Factually written and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

Well referenced

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

Inline citations are appropriate, however certain sections contain paragraphs cited entirely by one source. While this is OK, you might consider duplicating the reference instead of just leaving it at the end if that paragraph cites specific details, such as birth dates and monitary figures as occurs in the "early life" section. Still, this is just advice for improvement, not a GA concern.

(c) it contains no original research

No indication of original research

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

A well-covered subject, to the point of being a potential FA candidate. Well done.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article goes into detail, but not inappropriately. The article can easily be followed by the reader.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Article is very neutral and unbiased

Stable

it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Article is stable

Illustrated, if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

All images tagged as PD

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Images are relevant and useful, with captions

General comments

This is a well-written article, and a clear featured article contender. The article is in-depth and well referenced and the prose is very clear. Very well done.

Overall

Easily passes GA --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to review/comment, Shirik -- Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross referencing

I'm not suggesting alterations to this or any other article, but it's certainly interesting how things cross-reference. This article describes Brain, in April of 1929, finding a plane which crashed while looking for another plane, the Southern Cross, "reported missing on a record attempt from Sydney to England ..." Naturally I wondered what became of the Southern Cross, and when I read that article, it mentions the Southern Cross's flights in May/June 1928 (US to Australia) and September 1928 (Australia to New Zealand and back) but does not mention an Australia to England flight in 1929. And, when I read the article on the Broome air raid, the total casualties were given as 88 (in this article they are 70) and Brain's presence and actions are not mentioned.

Again, I'm not complaining. I realize the three articles are almost certainly by three separate primary authors, and that it's my job as much as anyone else's to add useful information from one article to another, or research primary sources to reconcile discrepancies. In the end, all I did was cross reference the Broome air raid article to this one. But I found these other items to be interesting examples of the difficulties of achieving consistency, so I thought I'd share. Gms3591 (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment, and thanks for linking the Broome raid article -- I didn't know about that one. I'll be interested to see the sources in the raid article. As to Southern Cross, I don't know but perhaps they even abandoned the flight to England after they had their mishap described here -- one would have to consult other sources, but that's peripheral to this article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lester Brain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308105237/https://www.awm.gov.au/images/collection/pdf/RCDIG1070478--1-.pdf to https://www.awm.gov.au/images/collection/pdf/RCDIG1070478--1-.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)