Talk:Nigel Cullen/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ian Rose in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am reviewing this article. As it appears to fulfill the GA criteria, I have only a few comments.

  • All fair questions, Xtzou -- from the top...!
Early career
  • "Browned off" with transport duties - what does this mean?
    • Browned off is military slang for annoyed, fed up or just bored. I used it because it is a direct quote from the source, as well as apt given the military subject.
Gladiators
  • "He was "blooded"on 9 October" - what does this mean?
    • Blooded means to initiate into combat -- but I've also seen the term used in competitive sport, e.g. cricket.
Hurricanes
  • "Cullen opened his account flying Hurricanes on 27 February" - is "opened his account" military terminology for something?
    • Used in the military, yes, but not exclusively -- also sport (again cricket for instance) I believe -- means opened his score (of victories in this case).
  • Since he flew for the RAF I am unclear why he is included in the official history of Australia in the war
    • Presumably because he was Australian-born, even though he served in the RAF (a great many Australians did in WWII) and is counted as an Australian ace.

Xtzou (Talk) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Reply Since "Browned off", "blooded", and "opened his account" appear to fall under "jargon" (or at least, are not understood by the general English-speaking reader - of which I am one), I think the terms should either be explained or linked to an explanation in the text. Xtzou (Talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • For the first two, how about I use the Wiktionery links as I've done here? I could change the other to "opened his score" or something more obvious if you think necessary, I used "account" here because I'd said "score" a few times previously. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, I would think you would want an article about a war hero to be accessible to the general reader. The use of jargon terms makes parts of it meaningless. Best, Xtzou (Talk) 13:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks. A nice little article about a war here that conveys something of his personality. Xtzou (Talk) 14:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:   Clearly and concisely written
    B. MoS compliance:   Complies with required elements of the MoS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:   Reliable sources
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:   Well referenced
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:   Sets the context
    B. Focused:   Remains focused on the topic
  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: Pass!  

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Xtzou! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply