2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable Assuming good faith on the printed sources (i.e. almost everything), as I don't have access to the books you're using.
a. provides references: Acceptable
b. proper citation use: Acceptable
c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage:
a. covers main aspects: Needs work
You include details on Ray's second Legion of Merit but no details on his first. Considering that you gave details for both Silver Stars, and the Legion of Merit is a higher level award, I would think that the first would warrant at least a sentence or two of coverage.
The source for the image, "US Navy photograph", isn't really good enough. Source is more "where did you get it from", i.e. is it scanned from a book? taken from a website? personal collection? If there is more information about the author, that also should be included.
Yeah, the photograph is from the my personal collection. I believe that it was one of a series of photographs of senior Naval officers taken in Australia in 1943. You can see he has his Silver Star but not yet the DSM of LoM. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
a. images that should have alt texts have them: Acceptable
b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable
Comments after the initial review: Nothing too serious. Should take about 10 minutes to get this into GA shape. I like doing GAN reviews for you MilHist people, you don't make me work very hard. This is alsoSven Manguard19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Section acceptable
Needs work
