Talk:Francis Pegahmagabow/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Disambiguations: None found (no action required)

Linkrot: External links all work (no action required)

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Donein the Military career section I suggest removing the World War I heading as basically the article only deals in detail with his service in that war;
Donethere is some overlinking, for instance of the term Military Medal;
Doneper Wikipedia:MOS#Dates the format of the dates is not correct, e.g. ordinal suffixes shouldn't be used (such as in November 6th/7th, it should just be "November 6/7";
Donethe narrative flow needs a bit of work I feel. For instance in this sentence: "During the second battle of Ypres, Festubert and Givenchy he was awarded the Military Medal while fighting at the second battle of Ypres, Festubert and Givenchy, for courage under fire in getting important messages through to the rear". (Ypres, Festubert and Givency are mentioned twice in the same sentence);
Donethis sentence is more of a summary sentence and should probably go at the end of the section about his war service: "Over the course of the war he become the leading sniper being awarded the Military Medal three times and credited with killing 378 Germans and capturing 300 more";
DoneI would also suggest dealing with the bit about the Ross rifle in a final summary section as per above, perhaps explaining why this is significant;
Donein the Political life section use of the emdash in "half—breeds" is not correct per WP:DASH, it should just be a hyphen in this case;
Donein the Political life section "grated with Pegahmagabow" or "grated on Pegahmagabow"? (I think the second sounds better);
Donein the Political life section " reelected" should be "re-elected";
Donethere is a mixture of terminology in the article, sometimes you use "World War I", sometimes "First World War";
Donein the Political life section, use of the emdash in "newly—empowered" is incorrect per WP:DASH, it should just be a hyphen;
Done"to free his people from, "white slavery"" should be "to free his people from "white slavery"" (there shouldn't be a comma in front of "white slavery");
Donethe page range for Citation # 8 should have an endash per WP:DASH;
Donethe composition titles for the References need to be consistent with Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;

I assume you're talking about ICON. This is the way its written at Amazon and Google books. So it should be Icon? -- Esemono (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the ICON one in particular, there are a few of them. Basically what I'm saying is that the titles should comply with the Wikipiedia Manual of Style. Amazon and Google don't follow our Manual of Style, so we need to tweak the capitalisation after copying them. For instance, this: "A fatherly eye: Indian agents, government power, and Aboriginal resistance in Ontario, 1918-1939" should be this: "A Fatherly Eye: Indian Agents, Government Power, and Aboriginal Resistance in Ontario, 1918–1939". AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC);[reply]

Fixed the book links -- Esemono (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Notes section for Citations # 1, 6, 7, 15 and 16 that are web citations, I'd suggest simply linking them in the Notes with the full details using {{cite web}} and leaving them out of the References section, where you could just include the full bibliographic details for the books. That seems to be acceptable in the A class articles I've been involved in , for instance this one here: Battle of Slater's Knoll;

This doesn't appear to be a MOS requirement that I can find. The style is consistent throughout the article, so I think that should be enough. I'd like to suggest that it is changed, but I won't hold it against the article as it is just a matter of personal preference.

Donethe categories should be sorted into alphabetical order, e.g. 1891 births, 1952 deaths, Canadian military personnel of World War I, Military snipers, Recipients of the Military Medal;
Donethe navigation template at the bottom of the article would look better if it were collapsed IMO as it currently dominates the References section when the box is not really as important as the References are. If you are not sure how to do this, let me know and I will see if I can fix it to do this;

Don't know how to do this -- Esemono (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this. I did this to the template: [3]. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donein the infobox there are currently two different date formats, e.g. "March 9, 1891 – 5 August 1952" (Month Day, Year and then Day Month Year), this needs to be made consistent;

I have made a few tweaks of the sentence structure to deal with the issues of narrative flow raised above. Please take a look and revert if you disagree. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

As per my point below, I would like to see the biography by Hayes (2003) being consulted;
Donethis sentence needs a citation: "In 1943, he became the Supreme Chief of The Native Independent Government, an early First Nations organization";

Every major point in the article is now referenced.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Early life section: this needs more detail, IMO. For instance, who were his parents? Where did he go to school (did he go to school?) Details such as his date of birth should be included here, for instance an example might go something like this: "John Smith was born on March 9, 1891, at the Wesley Hospital in Brisbane to Bob Smith, a prominent local businessman, and his wife, Mary (nee Kafoops). As a boy, Smith undertook his primary schooling at the local state school before receiving a scholarship and attending the exclusive Brisbane Boys College. While at BBC Smith excelled, and afterwards went to work as..."

There is no info (That I can find) online. I sadly don't have access to his biography nor access to any type of English library. -- Esemono (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World cat might be able to help locate the book, but if you don't have access to an English library it might not. Here is the link anyway, you can search for a book title and then tell it where you are and it will tell you nearest library to you that has the book. [4] AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the only places that have the book are in BC, Alberta Canada. No where near me -- Esemono (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some information from the biography by Hayes (2003) - is it possible to obtain a copy of this? It would possibly help to fill in some of the details about early life;
Donethe article alludes to the fact that Pegahmagabow continued serving after the war, but doesn't specify for how long. The infobox has years of service as 1914-1919, is this for certain or just a guess? If you know for certain, then you should include this information in the body of the article, e.g. something like this: "
when and why was Pegamagabow promoted?
Donethe controversy section: I feel that this needs to be reworked. Firstly, it is a bit light on the details. Secondly, use of terms like "jealous officers" seems a bit throw away and cliched, to be honest. Thirdly, can Boyden know that this is true? Or is is just speculation on his part? The way it is written currently is portraying it as absolute fact, but to be honest I doubt that this can be confirmed. It is more likely speculation on his part. It also ignores a key element of the Victoria Cross nomination system and that is that deeds must be witnessed by an officer. Regardless, some more information needs to be added in this section discussing it if it really was a controversy. For instance, have other sources said this or is it just a novelist? What evidence does Boyden cite to support his claim? I'm not doubting the assertion, as it is plausible, but it needs to be backed up with more information for a Good Article;

Here is the source I tried to squeeze as much info as I could out of it. -- Esemono (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the wording for this as it didn't seem neutral enough in my opinion. Please review the changes I have made and if you disagree, please just change it back. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donewhat happened between 1943 and 1952?
the article says he was married with six children, but there are no details of when he married and who he married, these could possibly be found in the biography;

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

DoneI would like to see more details about early life and the controversery about the MMs before judging this.

The copy edit has taken care of this, IMO.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

The article is not subject to an edit war.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

images both have alt text;
images are both captioned, tagged and licenced.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within the required timeframe. As such I will place it on hold for a week to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.
If you feel you need more than a week, I'm open to negotiation: I found this article very interesting and am keen to see it be promoted, so if you want/need more time to complete the requested changes I am okay with that. (I particularly understand that the request for the addition of the biography might take a while, libraries being what they are.)
Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am passing this article for GA as I believe it now meets the criteria. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Good work so far. I have read over the article again and made a few tweaks. Please check that you agree with them. If you don't please just revert and we can go over what I feel needs doing. There are still a couple of small style issues above that I feel should be addressed, however, they are only minor. The major issue at the moment, I feel, is regarding the biography by Hayes (2003). I have found that it is available in snippet view on Google books, so I have added a citation from it. However, I feel that the article really needs to consult this source in more detail for it to be considered complete. There are currently a couple of holes in the coverage of the article that could be solved by reference to this source. Namely: (1) the early life section; and (2) when did his military career end? In the Political career section it mentions him serving during World War II, however, the infobox still says his military career ended in 1919. This needs to be clarified and possibly a little bit written in the Military service section upon his post World War I service. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look fine. I put out a call for anyone who has access to the book will see if this article can get the requested info. Is militia the same as military? I was acting under the assumption that it was something in between the police and the military but not the military.-- Esemono (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe the Militia is the same as the military (I might be wrong, though). I believe it is basically a reserve element (certainly that is how the term was used at the same time in Australia). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK I was acting on that he left the military in 1919 but then joined the militia. I guess in the infobox I could add something like:

Canadian Expeditionary Force: 1914-1919
Algonquin Regiment Militia:1919-? 1939-?

But I don't have an end date, unless someone comes through with the book. -- Esemono (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that which propose above might be acceptable. Another suggestion regarding service record is this: is there a way to view Pegahmagabow's service record at all? In Australia our National Archives provides online access to many (not all) servicemen and women from the two world wars (usually all the notables such as VC recipients, generals, or those that have had books written about them). Is there a similar service for Canada? To be honest, I'm not sure, I'm just thinking out loud. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Esemono. Have you heard anything about the book at all? I think that the only details that are really missing from the article now are some of the early life (e.g. the section should really state something about his date of birth, place of birth, parents (if known) and schooling (if known)). It would be great to clear up the slight confusion about the military career, but it can probably be overlooked for the GA review if it can't be cleared up. The snippet view of the biography on Google books is tantelising but just doesn't quite give the details required. On page 14 I think it mentions his parents names as Michael Pegahmagbow and Mary Contin, but I can't see enough to confirm. If these details could be added in, I'd be fine with passing the review, but without them I'm a bit reluctant to do so because it doesn't quite cover the topic fully. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anyone with the book, I even looked into buying it off Amazon but its out of print and out of stock. I was able to coax a little more info out of the snipet view getting where the mother and father were from. I've added it to the article. -- Esemono (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. Looks good and well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]