Talk:Frank Tarr/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

I found substantial instances of close paraphrasing through Earwig's tool.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but using that tool, I fail to see 'substantial instances of close paraphrasing'. Please could you be specific so that I can fix, as necessary? FunkyCanute (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's odd. I'm not picking up the same results as before, which I guess is a good thing. Not sure what happened here, but it apparently is resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Are we able to close this now and deal with any other improvements as part and parcel of general improvements? FunkyCanute (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this might be false readings from proper nouns, too. The tool sometimes sees ranks and unit names and flags them, even though they can't really be written any other way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

G'day, noting the above concern, I think it is salvageable with a bit more copy editing. In addition, I have the following suggestions for the author to consider (I have only looked at it from a military history perspective and can't really comment on the rugby side): AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent presentation: "1st/4th Leicestershire Regiment" (in the lead) v. "1/4th Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment" (in the body). The second is the most accurate;
incorrect terminology: "regiment machine gun officer" - this would either be "regimental machine gun officer" or, more likely, "battalion machine gun officer". I believe that at that time their was one machine gun section per infantry battalion, so he would have commanded that;
"when war was declared the following year, Tarr enlisted almost immediately..." are we sure about this? He was already in the service, so I don't think enlisting is the correct term here (additionally officers don't enlist, they are appointed, but that is perhaps a bit esoteric). Perhaps "he volunteered for overseas service" would be more accurate;
"keep cover" - this isn't grammatically correct. Either "take cover" (if they weren't already there) or "remain under cover" (if they were already there) would be better;
"If it had struck any other part of his body, he would have survived..." Not sure I agree with this. It seems unnecessary and also probably unqualified opinion. I'd suggest just removing the sentence altogether as it is sufficient just to say " splinter from a shell struck him in the face, killing him". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: thanks... but do feel free to make bold changes to the article yourself. Or list your comments on talk page, as you like. Nevertheless:

I've made the change to 1/4th etc.
With regards to factual accuracy, I can only go by what the sources say. However, if you have sources showing that he was battalion machine gun officer, please do modify and reference etc, as usual. That would be great.

[1] this might helpKeith-264 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more a matter of grammar than anything else (e.g. one doesn't say "regiment sergeant major", one says "regimental sergeant major", and there is one of these per battalion, not per regiment...it is just a vagary of military terminology. Anyway, what exactly does your source say? Perhaps it is just the way is being interpreted... AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep cover' etc... I've changed but please feel free to make such alterations yourself. Although it seems that you previously had made the change, so my apologies.
The source for the final comment is an officer who served with him in the trenches and survived WWI, which makes it a fairly well-qualified opinion, in my opinion, but perhaps your opinion differs. Specifically, Milne says: "If it had been any other part of his body it would have caused only the slightest of wounds, a mere scratch..." As for 'unnecessary', this could bring us into a philosophical discussion... FunkyCanute (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but even a doctor's opinion would be speculativeKeith-264 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Keith, here. In this regard, I'd say there are two options. Either attribute the opinion, or remove it. For example, "According to So-and-so, if it had struck any other part of his body, he would have survived..." (or some other variation of that construction). Again, if it were me, I'd probably just remove the speculation altogether, but if you wish to keep it, it should be presented as an opinion, not as a fact. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did a minor copy-edit and wonder of [[File:MountSorrel1916.jpg|thumb|MountSorrel1916]] might help?Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: Thanks for the edit. I was going to use an image from Milne but your suggestion is better, I think. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's the most detailed one I know of for the area. If there's anything else I can help with, please let me know. Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no comment here for almost two months now, so I'm assuming that this means that there are no more objections to this being a GA. I'm reinstating it to GA status.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]