Talk:William Thompson (Medal of Honor, 1950)/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

• What about using this source, the Medal of Honor News: Two Black Medal of Honor recipients honored with renovated park in the South Bronx

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose:

   copyright laws

   , correct spelling and grammar:

   Under "Military career" the subject is always referred to as Thompson, never he or with some less repetitive wording. Too much repetition of "Thompson".

   I've cut down the instances of this. —Ed!^(talk) 15:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   b. complies with

   list incorporation

   :

   Too many "known to have" and "known to be" etc. Passive voice is to be avoided.

1. Removed this. —Ed!^(talk) 15:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides

   reliable sources

   where necessary:

   c. no original research:

   assume good faith as the sources aren't accessible to me

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   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:

• Also, the citation Appleman 1998, p. 194 is not in the Sources, so it throws a "Harv error: link to #CITEREFAppleman1998" error.

  (I fixed Appleman; took it off Battle of Sangju (1950). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Will place on hold while issues are addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 15:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few more edits to fix some remaining problems.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]