Talk:Robert Logan (politician)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1 & 2; These both sections may be clubed into one, or section 2 may be made a sub section of one. Because they are of the same context.
• Consider reorganizing the 2nd section; the sentences from his joining New Zealand militia may be moved into a new section something like "Military career", and later sections also be re-leveled accordingly under that.
• Section "Life in New Zealand"; Link "1st Otago Mounted Rifle Volunteers" to "Otago Mounted Rifle Regiment"
• Add the names of his spouse(s) to the infobox.
• Section "First World War", link "First World War" in the para. And also "New Zealand Expeditionary Force"
• Section "Samoa"; para 1; Link "New Caledonia" to its article.
• Section "Samoa"; para 2; In the first line, it was mentioned it is mentioned as "Admiral Maximilian von Spee", but in his article I could see that highest rank attained by Spee is Vice Admiral. Please recheck this.
• Section "Samoa"; para 2; Link "Apia"
• Section "Samoa"; para 3; The first sentence may be reworded as "Logan returned to New Zealand in January 1919". This would justify the meaning.
• Section "Later life"; Link "Lanarkshire"
• Consider moving the image to Infobox. Because there is no image in the infobox. As image is clearly focuses Logan, it can be used in the infobox with the same caption.

Loved reading the article, well constructed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Krishna, thanks for taking the time to review this article and provide your feedback. I have made a number of edits which I believe addresses all of the issues you have raised. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2016 (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:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)