Jump to content

Talk:James Newland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:John Ernest Newland)
Featured articleJames Newland is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2016.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 3, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 5, 2009Good article nomineeListed
August 18, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 22, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

Meritorious Service Medal

[edit]

Per the current Order of Precedence only naval recipients of the MSM before 1928 get postnoms, see "No. 56878". The London Gazette (invalid |supp= (help)). 17 March 2003.. This is strictly the British order, but I assume the Aussie rules don't differ markedly. David Underdown (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:James Newland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
No problems, although consider using third level (===) headings to break up the text on his First World War service.
I have used third level headings for the "Victoria Cross" and "Later war service" sections. Do you mean his earlier service during the war? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
Although complete enough, I'd be interested to see more information on his service in the Boer War (what was the "action" that he saw?), his service 1902-1914 in the Australian army and subsequently in 1919-1941 (where was he posted and what appointments did he hold?) As well as on his police service (Which force was he with?).--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could further improve these areas, but all of the information in the article is as much as I was able to gather from all of my sources. However, I can clarify that it was the Tasmanian Police Force. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]