GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 12:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be taking this on. Please ping me when responding on this page, so it doesn't get lost in my ~3,500 page watchlist... Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! @Eddie891: I figure I'll get to it once you finish the review. Is this the case? Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 03:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ed!, Done! Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ed!: any update on responding to my prose comments? If you don't agree with them, just say that, and I will happily pass Eddie891 Talk Work 23:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh! My apologies! Kinda fell through the cracks. I'll get to this in the next few days or the weekend. —Ed!(talk) 18:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Thank you for the patience! I've responded to everything below now. —Ed!(talk) 15:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ed!, Thanks! sorry for dragging this on so long. happy to approve! Great work! Eddie891 Talk Work 02:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

General

A drive by comment

It may be helpful to give his term as a representative in the lead. (Just a thought.) A nice article, IMHO. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like it would be inconsistent to do so without also doing so for the Navy service, based on current sentence structure. Adding both would make it start to run on. —Ed!(talk) 03:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed