Talk:Keith Lindsay Stewart/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Section 1; sentence 1; Consider deleting "the son of a bank manager", and add "His father was a bank manager". The former is a bit confusing.

Section 1; sentence 2; Link Napier Boys' High School and Wanganui Collegiate to their articles.

Section 1; In 1914, he entered the; "joined" would be a better alternative "entered".

With respect, I disagree. It is not appropriate to refer to "joining" a school. You would "join" a club or even the army, but you wouldn't join a school. You would enter school or university. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Section 1; "having passed the necessary entrance exams", may be replaced by "having cleared the entrance exams". Entrance exams are necessary, there is no need to again mentioned "necessary entrance exams".

All the 2, 3, 4 Sections are ought to be put under Level 2 section "Military career". That would make them 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 respectively.

Section "First World War"; "Most of his war was spent in Egypt" to be "Most of his war period was spent in Egypt", just "his war" has no meaning.

Section "Inter-war period"; Link "Ceylon Defence Force" completely not just Ceylon. Also link "South Island" in the same section.

Section "Second World War"; para 1; "appointed to Army Headquarters" is a bit awkward. Appoint used for some position, not a place. "transferred to Army Headquarters" would be fine.

Have revised. I used "posted" rather than "transferred" to avoid any connotation of a demotion. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Section "Second World War"; Revise the last but one sentence of para 1, it is a bit confusing.

Section "Second World War"; para 1; Add "back" after "returned" in "Stewart returned to the 5th Infantry Brigade as its commander", because he once held the command of the brigade prior to this one.

With respect, I disagree. The use of "back" is redundant. He "returned" to the 5th Infantry Brigade because he commanded it previously. If it was his first time in command, I would have used "appointed commander" or similar. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Section "Later life"; sentence 1; A comma (,) is needed after "Stewart retired from the military in 1954". Also "he was not rewarded with" would be better than just "was not rewarded with"

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Krishna (may I refer to you by that name?), thanks for the feedback on the article. There were a couple of points I disagreed with, but I have explained why. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zawed: Of course you can, always. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)