Talk:Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

• no dabs found by the tools;
• ext links all work;
• images have alt text.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• in the Early life section you introduce the PAF abbreviation for a second time, having already introduced it in the lead. Thus you probably could just use the abbreviation in the Early life without formally introducing it again;

• Yeah, I guess I'm applyng my rule of making the lead and the main body of the article self-contained as far as both links and abbreviations go. If you really think it's going too far I guess I could bend things but that was my rationale... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• the circumstances of the rescue are slightly unclear, "Nicknamed "Tiny", Cameron had the bulkiest frame of any man in the unit, and Jeffrey had to ditch his parachute to make room for..." Perhaps you could just had a clause making it clear that Jeffrey had to land. For instance, "Nicknamed "Tiny", Cameron had the bulkiest frame of any man in the unit, and after landing Jeffrey had to ditch his parachute to make room for...";

• Thanks for that reality check and the suggestion -- I wondered a bit if it was completely clear but succinct at the same time, and that feedback helps a lot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• in the South West Pacific section, I believe that Darwin has been already been linked (in the Middle East);
• same as above for Clive Caldwell;
• same as above for No. 1 Fighter Wing;
• same as above for Mentioned in Despatches;

• Re. the first three, this was inadvertent, due to retrofitting info after I'd wrapped up the main chronological thread of the article. However when I spotted it myself after a while I thought maybe it was fair as Darwin, Caldwell and 1WG are particularly relevant to the Pacific section and perhaps it wasn't a bad idea to repeat the links after all...

• No dramas, I can understand the reasoning. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• The second MiD link is certainly redundant and I've removed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• in the lead you have "before 10 April 1997", but in the infobox you have "10 April 1997" for date of death. I take it that there is some uncertainty about the exact time? This doesn't seem to be explained, however, in the Post-war career section. I think that the best way to solve this would be to add a sentence or a note in the Post-war career explaining that there is some uncertainty;

• The only RS I have for his death is the SMH obit which is dated 10 April 1997 but, as is so often and annoyingly the case, it doesn't mention the actual date of his passing. I thought it was a bit fussy to go into that in the article. As far as the lead saying "before" and the infobox treating it as an exact date, I'm not that happy with it but I don't think the infobox is smart enough to just take a month/year for death and then calculate the age on that. There is precedent for this situation/presentation with an FA of mine, Alexander Pentland -- of course I'm open to suggestions for improvement! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I see. Sorry, I'm not sure how to fix that one. I suppose the only way to confirm the date of death would be to contact Births, Deaths and Marriages but that would be serious original research, plus I'd feel a bit uncomfortable doing that. Seems a bit too much like an invasion of privacy. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• in the Post-war section, is there anything that says why he was denied readmission to the PAF in August 1946? If not, that is fine (it was probably just a HR issue, i.e. establishment cap).

• Heh, did you mean "establishment cap" or "establishment crap"?! No I'm afraid there's no further info on that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, yes the second one! Seriously, though, that's fine, if the sources don't say something, it can't be expected. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• No issues.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Excellent work as usual for you, Ian. Just a couple of comments/suggestions that I think need discussion before promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee that's probably the quickest turnaround time for any GAN I've ever raised -- tks for that, and for taking care of those dab links! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it was an easy review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)