# Talk:The Bomber Mafia

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Bomber Mafia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Homesteading this. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
In the interest of disclosure, I haven't read the book. Sounds like rubbish.

Yes. I thought this review was particularly good. They say Gladwell has the ability to influence thousands with the book being so mainstream, but for a book so popular it should have been fact checked better, and the main premise of the book was inaccurate. Alas. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Ranks are wrong.  "General"  Haywood S. Hansell, should be "Major General" in the first appearance lead and the body.
Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Same for Major General Curtis LeMay
Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
"General" Arthur Harris should be Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris
Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
"This could lead to a minimum of casualties" are we talking about casualties in the air or on the ground?
This is more my paraphrasing of the text. The exact text is: "Because the Norden represented a dream — one of the most powerful dreams in the history of warfare: if we could drop bombs into pickle barrels from thirty thousand feet, we wouldn't need armies anymore. We wouldn't need to leave young men dead on battle-fields or lay waste to entire cities. We could reinvent war. Make it precise and quick and almost bloodless. Almost." I've added "war-time" before "causalities" for added context. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Does the book cover Hansell's less than stellar experience in Europe?
It does go over his failed bombing of a German plant that made ball bearings. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I've added a bit about that to the article. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I've been reverted, and I don't know enough about the subject to give a real opinion. Here is the diff. What is your opinion? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Does it mention other members of the bomber mafia like Donald Wilson and Kenneth Walker?
Walker no, Wilson only in passing. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Or anything between 1945 and 1991?
I agree something more could be added. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
"Bombing of Tokyo on 10 March 1945" Link Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945), and you've switch date formats. Pick one.
Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Switched dates. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You mention his treatment of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the reviews but not the summary.
Removed from reviews. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
"After the United States invasion of Kuwait, David L. Goldfein states that by then bombs could hit, with precision, a specific wing of a building." General David L. Goldfein. Some context needed here: is Goldfein being quoted? (Suggest splitting last two sentences off into their own paragraph.)
Split. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Passing
I'll get to this shortly, thank you for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)