# Talk:Richard Travis

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Travis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100427043043/http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-nz/nzef.htm to http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-nz/nzef.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that the actor is the primary topic. Just saying. Schwede66 10:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Travis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Minor issues with grammar and some puffery.  I made some minor edits here.  Please review to see if this makes sense, and ping me back.  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: Thanks for looking at this. Apart from a couple, your changes look good. The exceptions were the first paragraph (it wasn't the Army that was deciding what to do) and the third paragraph (some repetitive language, which I rephrased) of the Western Front section. I also supplemented the text a little as well in a couple of places. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2018 (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: