The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I reviewed for GA and feel the article is very close to meeting the A-class criteria. Some minor points:
  • "By the end of the quick battle", might work better as "By the end of the short battle' (suggestion only).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "8 Japanese aircraft had been shot down and only one American plane was damaged", should be "eight" per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davis' unit underwent patrol and escort missions", might work better as "Davis' unit undertook patrol and escort missions..." (suggestion)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was one of 12 Thunderbolts patrolling Mindoro when 8 A6M Zeroes were spotted...", this should be "eight" per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davis' patrol of eight F-86s spotted a large group of 9 Tupolev Tu-2 bombers...", this should be "nine" per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After 30 combat missions in Korea, Davis had twelve victories...", should be "12" per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a typo? "draw attentions away from his wife's vocal opposition to the war...", specifically I think "attentions" should be sigular, i.e. "attention".
    • "attentions" refer to the different levels of attention of multiple people. Collective "attention" of the public also makes sense but as far as I know they are interchangeable. Kind of like the difference between "people's hearts and minds" and "the heart and mind of the people." —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a little repeatitive. In particular in the "Medal of Honor action" section you write: "Davis was one of only 31 pilots in US aviation history with over 20 victories" and later "Throughout his career, Davis was credited with 21 confirmed victories, one probable victory and two aircraft damaged. This made him one of only 30 US pilots to gain more than 20 confirmed victories over their careers..." in the "Aerial Victory credits" section. You could probably trim one of these sections. Perhaps remove the first sentence (from the Medal of Honor Action section) and keep the second (that in the Aerial Victory credits section)? Anotherclown (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happy to support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact Check - Is it really true that George's body was recovered? The last time I checked he is still labeled MIA. Jim101 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That ref is from the Zhang Jihui page, and it is cited to say the same thing there, as well. —Ed!^(talk) 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what I meant was his body returned to the States and received proper burial. Zhang Jihui page did not indicate that. Jim101 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't seen anything about that in any of my sources. —Ed!^(talk) 17:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then it would be a good idea to remove the statement "It was returned to the US after the end of the war in 1953." until a source can confirm this statement, since Davis is still officially MIA, not KIA. Jim101 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I rewrote the entire sentence to reflect the DPMO findings. Jim101 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ed, can you double check your source Texas Cemeteries: The Resting Places of Famous, Infamous, and Just Plain Interesting Texans to see if Davis' grave is a real grave or a cenotaph? Also, shouldn't the Place of burial field in the infobox changed to something like Lubbock, Texas USA (cenotaph) or Unknown? Jim101 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked through all my sources again. I can't find anything explicitly stating his resting place or what became of his body after the Chinese recovered it. Only that there is a monument of some kind for him in Lubbock, Texas. —Ed!^(talk) 02:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a footnote on his place of burial...technically a monument in a grave yard is a cenotaph. Jim101 (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on sourcing/citations Fifelfoo (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Template:Citation#Journals.2C_newspapers.2C_magazines.2C_or_other_periodicals; with this diff Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texas Cemeteries: The Resting Places of Famous, Infamous, and Just Plain Interesting Texans, that is an awesome publication.
  • The sidebox in §Length of Tour is an excellent example of how to "illustrate" with a primary source.
  • There is an excellent balance of sources, making use of scholarly, militaria, and the most appropriate sources published near the event. The view of the opposing force has been sought in scholarly sources.
  • References: Watch for full-stops at the end of the references, some like "Zhang 2004, p. 158." have them, most don't.
  • Spotchecked for facts/plagiarism: fn2, 23, 35 (yes, the easy ones); they're all good.

Thanks for your review. I've cut the fullstops from all refs now. —Ed!^(talk) 14:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I made any edits that I would have suggested. Feel free to revert if you disagree. In terms of a tech review, there were no dabs and ext links all worked. Some of the images have alt text, while others don't. You may wish to add this in before taking it to FAC. I think the images are licenced correctly, but I'm not exactly an expert on these matters. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.