Talk:John Capper/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I think it generally a good, well written article and only have the following comments:

Comments

• Word repetition - In the lead, you have two sentences in a row that start with "He". And one sentence uses "helped" and "helping" - Suggest for improved prose and interest for the reader that you vary wording more.

• Rephrased lead

• Under references, none of the titles should be in all caps.

• Done

• The article seems lacking in some detail that would make it more complete and also add interest. It would be great to know more specifically what Capper contributed to tactics, for example, i.e. what were his particular strengths as a tactician compared to the tactics of others and more about the particular battle/wars and the tactical situations he faced; likewise some specific examples of why he was considered Stone Age , some of the specific building projects he was responsible for creating would allow the reader to better understand the man.

• I'm afraid I have no additional information. This was a problem at the previous GA nomination and although I have expanded the article since then, there is still a limit to the information I have available. If this is a problem on which the article will fail then so be it I'm afraid.

• Although I am not a fan of lengthy "personal life" sections, the mention that Capper was in command of the division in which his son was serving and was killed seems striking. Did this not have any effect on him?

• It must have had an effect on him, but no reaction to his son's death is recorded in any of the sources. I have slightly rephrased as I am not sure which division his son served with in 1916 although he was definately killed on the Somme.

I will places this article on hold for now.

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have replied as best I can. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regretfully, I must fail. He does not come to life as an individual. There is not enough information about him other than a chronology of his career. Sorry, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Reliable sources c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Broad in coverage b (focused): Lasts individual detail other than a chronology of subjects career.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I am sorry. If you disagree, you may resubmit it or submit it to good article review

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)