Talk:Charles Upham/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Kiwiz1338 (talk · contribs) 10:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one. Before I get started though, I want to check that you have at least the Sandford and Scott books. At a glance, I can see some sourcing issues but these should be easy to fix if you have these two books. I think I have a copy of Sandford's book somewhere but it may not be the same edition used here. Zawed (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed thank you for your time reviewing. I have Sandford 1963 phyiscally, and an epub of Scott 2020. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I commend your work on this article, it has been improved significantly from what it was. There is still some tidying up to be done, but once that has been done and this is at GA level, I think you should take a run at A-Class review at MilHist with the article. It'll get more reviewing eyes there and prep it nicely for FA.

I'll deal with some initial issues first, and will do a closer review of the text once those have been dealt with. As noted above, there are issues with the sourcing so will start there.

Sourcing

I mention Sandford and Scott above, but another useful source would be Harper & Richardson's Acts of Valour (published by HarperCollins in 2016). That will be helpful for most of the WWII stuff and provide a bit of diversity of print sources so you aren't so reliant on Sandford. I would also lean on Scott more since it is a modern source. Done
Some of the internet sources strike me as being a bit dubious, e.g. NZedge (cite 1). I appreciate that these predate your work by several years but sourcing standards have really moved on since they were added. I am sure you would be able to cite these to Sandford, Scott and/or Harper & Richardson. Scott, being so recent, may mention some of the material covered in the "Other honours" section (which I think should be renamed to "Legacy"), so you could drop some of the web links there. Done

I have replaced NZedge with book ref's. Renamed to Legacy

Cite 14 is in the wrong format - since it is a obituary by the Press, it should be done in the "News" citation template, with the url going to the archive link. Done
Cites 25, 34, 38, 39 are inconsistent with the formatting used for the Sandford cites. Also, there are no page numbers for cite 25 and 39 which is unacceptable. Done
Cite 16 is improperly formatted and is presently named "Story: Upham, Charles Hazlitt"; it should be in the style of cite 2 as used at Cyril Bassett. Done
Cite 16 and cite 44 are actually the same publication (Crawford, listed in the Works cited section) but presented in different styles. Done
Cite 13 and 53 look to be the same as well (Hurunui District Council) Done
Cite 47 is a dead link (Derek Cheng in the Herald) Done
No date on cite 50 (NZ Police) Done
No page number for cite 59 (Scott) Done
The first usage of cite 40 does not support the statements that it is the source for. It doesn't name Martin-Leake or Chavasse as the previous recipients. Note that I will be doing some more spot checks on sourcing in the next phase of the review. Done

Replaced with book ref

The last two items in the "Works cited" section aren't actually cited and should be moved to the External links section. The Art of War link doesn't actually work properly anyway, for me at least. Delete it if it doesn't work for you. Done

Structure

The structure needs some work:

I suggest some subheadings within the WWII section, e.g. Greece and Crete, North Africa. Done
Some big paragraphs should be broken up, particularly the one that starts "In July 1940..." Done
the VC citations should be placed chronologically within the article. Done
Upham was presented with the ribbon to his VC in October/November 1941. This is worth mentioning, see Harper & Richardson Done
There is no mention of the presentation of the Bar to Upham; this happened in Christchurch in 1946 (see Harper & Richardson)
I think that there could be more on the circumstances around the decision to make the second award of the VC; again Harper & Richardson could be useful.
Delete the in popular culture section. You cite Scott in the article itself so seems pointless mentioning it here and the other fact is just trivia. Done

I expect that's enough for now, with a bit of work for you there. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed. Thanks for your help. I have put a check mark on the points I have done. Im stuggling to find anything for

"There is no mention of the presentation of the Bar to Upham; this happened in Christchurch in 1946 (see Harper & Richardson)" even in Harper & Richardson

and what to add with

"I think that there could be more on the circumstances around the decision to make the second award of the VC"

Could you be so kind to help me out a little with this; where to find this? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 236 to 237 discuss it a little but the main issue for me is the absence of time frames. Note also, in the Bar to VC section, the exchange between Kippenberger and the King is out of place chronologically and it makes no sense to me to have that section start with the VC citation. There is also no context for who Burrows and Inglis are. Zawed (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image checks

Charles Hazlitt Upham.jpg (infobox image): I doubt very much that this is an Egyptian work, as per the tag. The image is held at the Alexander Turnbull and if I am interpreting [https://tiaki.natlib.govt.nz/#details=ecatalogue.223868 this web link\ correctly, it holds the negative (suggesting the photographer was probably a NZ war photographer). Regardless, the image tag to replace the Egypt one should be NZ-PD.
Canterbury Agricultural College Football Club First Fifteen 1929 (cropped).jpg: needs a US tag to comply with Commons requirements. I think it is a NZ-PD due to the photographer being deceased prior to the date specified in the applicable tag.
Lieutenant Colonel Howard Karl Kippenberger with Lieutenant Charles Hazlitt Upham, Egypt (cropped).png: same issue as infobox image, has Egypt tag. Most likely a NZ or maybe British war photographer.
Charles Hazlitt Upham shortly after discharge from Helwan Camp hospital, 1941.png: same issue RE Egypt tag. Note that I am not sure that this is a PD-NZ image, if it was first published in 1963. This looks to be a personal photo.
General Auchinleck and Charles Upham VC.jpg: as per infobox image. Most likely a NZ or maybe British war photographer.
Charles Hazlitt Upham VC and members of his platoon.jpg: as above
Charles Upham tangled in coiled barbed wire.jpg: a fair use tag
Charles Hazlitt Upham WWII Personnel File (1939 - 1955).jpg: CC 2.0 tag checks out OK although TBH I don't see what this image adds to the article. I have deleted this sort of thing from other articles I monitor.
Charles Upham 1984 (cropped).jpg: CC 3.0 tag checks out OK
VCCharlesHazlittUphamGrave.jpg: I believe this tag is OK, it is my understanding that the VC reference site was migrated to Wikipedia many years ago.
Amberley Charles Upham Statue 001.JPG: the tag itself is OK for the photograph, but I think another tag is required for the statue/scuplture. From my reviewing, FoP-New Zealand may be the one.

Image review done, some tags need to be changed/added. Zawed (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

all

Done Kiwiz1338 (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed Should I delete File:Charles Hazlitt Upham shortly after discharge from Helwan Camp hospital, 1941.png? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwiz1338, that would be the safest option. Zawed (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Running the Copyvio tool from the GA toolbox (see the box on top right), there are a couple of likely copyright violations. One, to victoriacrossonline.co.uk/charles-hazlitt-upham-vc-and-bar is OK because this article was migrated over from that site with permission, as per the talk page. However the second, to [teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/5u2/upham-charles-hazlitt], is concerning with some unusual turns of phrase copied from that page. The article will need to be reworded to overcome this issue. The remaining sources checked have minimal copying due to usage of common turns of phrase so should not be a problem. Zawed (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwiz1338: just checking you have seen the new comments. Also, do you have the edition of Sandford that is listed in the "Works cited" section? From the place of publication, it looks to be the US edition but I don't know if that version is commonly available in NZ. My copy is the 1962 UK edition published by Hutchinson. Zawed (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed. Hey thanks for your help. I was just a little busy but now I'll try get to your comments asap. Yes I have the US edition of Sandford. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwiz1338: how is this progressing? If it is going to be much longer, maybe I should fail the article to allow the work to be done outside of the GA process? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think we should do that. Thank you. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will fail it. Let me know when you renominate it for GA once the work is done, I will be happy to do a second review. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do, cheers. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]