Talk:Court-martial of Susan Schnall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Court-martial of Susan Schnall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good. It's actually a biographical article about the person rather than the court martial.

Comments:

As an aside, it is almost impossible to defend "conduct unbecoming", as the final clause is just "other than the above". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Very helpful review and comments. I learned a lot. I agreed with all your suggestions and made the appropriate changes. One exception, I couldn't find a link to Vietnam? There is one to North Vietnam which I thought should remain.JohnKent (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Looks good. Passing.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.