Talk:Townsend F. Dodd/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Happy to review this. An interesting chap all round. In the most this seems a great article, however I think it does need work - mostly on reorganisation and focus - to meet the GA criteria. Some initial points to look at:[reply]

There are a few instances where "his" (etc.) are used to start paragraphs, replace with Dodd for clarity (I've fixed one).

I believe I have rectified this issue. Tartarus ^talk 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use Dodd's rank before his name once it has been established

Took some doing, but corrected. Tartarus ^talk 21:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Goodier court-martial and Mexican Border are confusing... a lot of detail r.e. Goodier is included which strikes me as not overly relevant to Dodd. Then the next section jumps back to 1913 with more context on the crashes. I suggest reduce the detail on Goodier's crash and reorganise those sections to work chronologically.

I believe that I have fixed this, please check though. Tartarus ^talk 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is very short for an article of this length, I'd expect to see around 2 paragraphs of decent length summarising the content. Also; consider linking some parts of the lead.

I have expanded the lead. Is it sufficient? Tartarus ^talk 22:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article could do with a good look through from a prose point of view, as there are a few odd bits I found. For example and had been promoted to Colonel. He was promoted to Colonel 14 August 1918. (I've fixed that example)

Fixed some prose work. If there is any other I may have missed, please let me know. Tartarus ^talk 22:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One specific point; By the end of the war, however, - this makes no grammatical sense that I can see. "However" what??

Not sure why this was written. It has been removed. Tartarus ^talk 22:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a little more work I think this article would reflect the Good Article standard! --Errant ^(chat!) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have a few more little issues to mention.

On 1 May 1928 the airfield was named Dodd Army Airfield; which airfield? As the article is currently structured it suggests either Bustleton Field or Langley Field - but the linked article implies otherwise. There are pieces of information later in the paragraph - is it possible to make all of this clearer?

Perhaps better? Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no further details on Dodd's personal/non-military life? (this is just to ensure the article meets the GA criteria for coverage)

For example, when was he married??

I have looked into this but haven't had much luck finding anything. It doesn't appear to be covered anywhere. Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was later transferred to the Aviation Section, Signal Corps in 1912; this sentence then leads into a mention that he set a world record. I presume it was at this stage he learned to fly, it may be worth saying that explicitly.

Done. Tartarus ^talk

He has been listed; I was a little confused by this - he was listed in 1913? Or later? Who listed him?

Order fixed. Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of the pre-war section mentions First Aero Squadron, but then says First Aero Brigade - not sure which is right?

Squadron is correct. Changed. Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When he arrived in Europe he was appointed Lieutenant Colonel in the Signal Corps in late 1917; this refers to Dodd or Rickenbacker??

Dodd. Fixed. Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While serving with Bolling Mission; what does this mean?

Expanded and improved on duties. Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning As an Aviation Officer seems very mixed up, with small portions of incomplete information appearing first (his report and being superseded) followed with a lot more detail - in repetition. I've tried to fix this somewhat, but please check for correctness. I am unsure what and its duties described means though?

Thank you for the CE. That end of sentence was just badly written on my part, so I have fixed it. Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenly; who? This reads like he has been mentioned before but I can't find any reference to the name... It also appears to be spelled differently later in the paragraph?

I have tried to correct this and have linked to the correct Kenly. Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kenly paragraph suffers from a lack of focus I feel; what is it trying to establish? I presume something along the lines of Dodd and his peers progression?

Again, I have tried to correct this. Tartarus ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also undertaken some copyediting of the article, please check these are acceptable. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll give this a pass :) good work. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]