Talk:Nigel Cullen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reviewing this article. As it appears to fulfill the GA criteria, I have only a few comments.

"Browned off" with transport duties - what does this mean?
- Browned off is military slang for annoyed, fed up or just bored. I used it because it is a direct quote from the source, as well as apt given the military subject.

"He was "blooded"on 9 October" - what does this mean?
- Blooded means to initiate into combat -- but I've also seen the term used in competitive sport, e.g. cricket.

"Cullen opened his account flying Hurricanes on 27 February" - is "opened his account" military terminology for something?
- Used in the military, yes, but not exclusively -- also sport (again cricket for instance) I believe -- means opened his score (of victories in this case).

Since he flew for the RAF I am unclear why he is included in the official history of Australia in the war
- Presumably because he was Australian-born, even though he served in the RAF (a great many Australians did in WWII) and is counted as an Australian ace.

Xtzou (Talk) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks for taking the time to review. Xtzou. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Since "Browned off", "blooded", and "opened his account" appear to fall under "jargon" (or at least, are not understood by the general English-speaking reader - of which I am one), I think the terms should either be explained or linked to an explanation in the text. Xtzou (Talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first two, how about I use the Wiktionery links as I've done here? I could change the other to "opened his score" or something more obvious if you think necessary, I used "account" here because I'd said "score" a few times previously. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would think you would want an article about a war hero to be accessible to the general reader. The use of jargon terms makes parts of it meaningless. Best, Xtzou (Talk) 13:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as I proposed above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A nice little article about a war here that conveys something of his personality. Xtzou (Talk) 14:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written

B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of the MoS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Sets the context

B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!