Just classed at B following expansion, was hoping for some tips on how to get to GA level. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham, B.S.
Looks pretty good so far. Just a few general comments for the moment, though:
- I would wikilink National Library of Australia in the lead.
- Endashes are required in all date ranges in the article, and page ranges in citations.
- The access dates in citations are inconsistent, with some capitalised and others not. I think this is due to differing cite templates. In order to remedy this, I would recommend the use of Template:Cite web for internet sources (stick with the London Gazette temp for that though), and Template:Cite book for book sources listed in "References" section. Also, it is best that the place of publishment be added to the book sources.
- If you are aiming to progress further up the quality scale with the article, then I would recommend you add alt text to the images.
- Although I don't think it is a requirement, it is preferred that consecutive cites go in numerical order. For instance: "She was discharged on 22 June 1919.[3][2]". In this case, it is preferred that the [2] goes before the [3].
This is all for the moment, but hopefully I will be back soon to go through the prose. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jinnai
Good start, but there are some problems.
- Early life and Later life sections and Later service subsection need to be either expanded or merged, especially the former. Short sections, especially the Early life, won't be able to stand on their own for higher quality articles.
- Personally as the article stands you could do this is just 2 sections - Military life with a subsection on her award and non-military life. There is not enough info for either early or late life to stand on their own.
- I disagree. Although there is only a limited amount of information in two of the sections, the article flows logically and has a sophisticated structure. If these were to be cut out, I believe the structure would be rather confusing and poorly presented. Just my thoughts, and it is up to Backslash Forwardslash. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure trying to scrape everything I can on the early life and later life sections, as without it the article would be incoherent. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think s/he means the actual subheadings, rather than the information itself. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Don't remove the info. However it should be structured better.陣内Jinnai 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of the other 6 women known? They should be linked to or put in a footnote after the note about them if you have the information.
- add ((persondata)) to the article
- The article needs to conform with WP:DATE. Stuff like 1st of September should be redone to formatting for the rest of the article.陣内Jinnai 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose
Good to see such an article - well done. In addition to points raised above, my thoughts:
- The first thing needed for any future assessment was a copyedit to fix typos, improve phrasing and add some clarity, which I've had a go at.
- I find the level of detail a bit light for GA myself; although that assessment is designed for shorter articles, I myself wouldn't submit one of mine for GAR without a bit more meat on it. If you can't find any more sources, you could still exploit her ADB entry for further detail (e.g. early life, which would help negate Jinnai's concerns re. having a separate section for that) and perhaps some others.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]