Talk:Henry Burrell (admiral)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

• I noticed several wikilinks appear two or three times in the article. Wikilinks should only appear on first reference.
  • While I know some adhere to that method, it also appears acceptable to re-link in the body of the article items linked in the intro section; I think it's also not against the rules to relink where there's a significant gap between one occurrence of the link and the next. In all cases the aim is to aid readers without 'overlinking'. This is how I've done it in all my articles and it seems satisfactory at both GA and FA level. With that in mind, can you point out where you believe there are unnecessary links? I'd agree three times is overdoing it (not counting instances in the infobox) but I must've missed such occurrences... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've addressed the ones I found myself. I got a little confused about different ships with the same name, so it wasn't as big a problem as I originally thought. -Ed!^(talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• There is a gap in the biography in the "Retirement" section between 1962 and 1980. What did he do during this time? Where did he live? Even if he did absolutely nothing, a brief mention of this is needed to fill in the space.
  • As mentioned, he retired to his farm. No sources I have discuss any outside work he did after retirement from the Navy. There is a brief mention in ADB of owning racehorses but that's about all I could add. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting note and I think it should be added, with anything else that can be found. 20 years is just a big gap. -Ed!^(talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• If there is a known cause of death, this would also be useful.
  • This is not stated explicitly in his ADB or Oxford Companion entries. Death from cardiac problems is implicit given his diagnosis soon after retirement and his heart attack in 1980. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, that's fine then. -Ed!^(talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass The article easily passes the verifiability guidelines

2. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Weak Pass

• I'm not going to prevent promotion of the article but I should cauitoun you that a large protion of the article's sources are Australain government or military, leaving the potential for systematic bias. Other A-class review you put the article through may point this out, and it will very likely be an issue if the article goes through Featured Article Nominations.
  • I think most of the info in those sources is fairly prosaic but, in any case, I'm not planning to take this to FAC unless an additional source shows up offering greater detail to add. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

3. Overall:

   On Hold As the article passed a MILHIST A-class review, which are renowned for being much more difficult than GA, I assume this is only a formality, thus have offered a few suggestions. The article easily meets most GA criteria, and I only have a few minor nitpicks to address before it is promoted. -Ed!^(talk) 03:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   Tks for taking the time to review, Ed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   OK. The article passes the GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -Ed!^(talk) 17:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Tks again, Ed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)