---

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. My name is Hawkeye7, and I will be your reviewer. During this review I may make small edits such as spelling corrections, but I will only suggest substantive content changes in comments here. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make.My goal as your reviewer is to assess the quality of your work and offer suggestions for its improvement; I want to help you write a truly good article. To this end, I intend to be collaborative and work with a collegial attitude. If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offence, please let me know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

• Can you move the two references out of the infobox?  Done
• In particular, his nickname "Bob" should be mentioned and cited in the body  Done
• He was also awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal a second time, the Legion of Merit and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal [1]  Done

Early life[edit]

• Consider folding footnote b into the body.  Done

Military service[edit]

• Footnote c: Neither of them seem notable.  Removed
• "Director of Defense Research and Engineering Dr. Harold Brown," Drop the "dr." (MOS:DOCTOR)  Removed
• Consider folding footnote d into the body.  Done
• Footnote d: Add a link to Skybolt Crisis  Done

Post-military life[edit]

• Use "he" on subsequent mention in the paragraph to reduce the repetition of his name.  Done
• New paragraph at "Beginning in 1988"  Done

Images[edit]

• Since we have a nice portrait at the top, the non-free artwork can be omitted.  Done

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. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   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:

   Addresses the main aspects of the topic. Some gaps though, so I would not recommend sending it to FAC.

   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:

   Overall, I believe that this article meets the GA criteria.

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for your efforts of re-reviewing the article. I have implemented the changes requested above through multiple edits, which accumulated can be seen here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]