# Talk:William R. Purnell

This review is transcluded from Talk:William R. Purnell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 17:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
Copy edit revealed no major concerns with the prose.
B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
The lead is a bit too short given the size of the article. My suggestions: incorporate a bit of material on his supervision of the Manhattan Project and/or mention his awards. The other MoS criterion are met.
A. Provides references to all sources: 
Article has sources for all content, all verifiable.
B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 
Sources are high quality books and periodicals. Spot checks reveal no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing. Citation bot, Checklinks, and Reflinks found no issues. No technical errors were spotted in the referencing mark-up.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 
We could use a bit of general info on why they went to Tinian please.
B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
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: 
Hi Hawkeye! A nice article that only needs a couple things for a pass. The article has been placed on hold for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the introduction, and the section on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay good. I am passing to GA. Best wishes and congratulations, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)