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

Reviewer: Kges1901 ( talk · contribs) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Interesting and well written article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• Inconsistent ref formatting - some references use harv and others don't. I'd suggest that you change the templates to harv ref for consistency.

• I think you mean the Gustafson ref, have converted to harv. Zawed ( talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Could you also include a concise mention of the actions that he was awarded the VC for in the lead, as those are the actions that result in his notability? Kges1901 ( talk) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Have revised lead. Zawed ( talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Kges1901: thanks for the review, comments addressed as outlined above. Cheers, Zawed ( talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply