Talk:John Treloar (museum administrator)

Comments

Some comments as I look at the article, which by the way is a fascinating read:

• The lede needs expanding a bit, maybe another paragraph or so.
• 'His parents' backgrounds differed considerably; his father was a sales representative for the Carlton & United Breweries while his mother was a strict Methodist' - This seems a tad incongruous to me; I know that Methodists don't like their drink, but saying their backgrounds differed considerably with this information doesn't seem quite right. If the father had been a Catholic, or the mother had been a Temperance worker, then maybe, but the differences don't seem that great. Maybe just get rid of the 'Backgrounds differed considerably' bit?
• 'When he recovered his health Treloar attempted to return to Brudenell White's staff. This was not successful, however, and he instead joined the Australian Flying Corps as an officer' - Do we know why not?
• 'Treloar's first challenge was to improve the quality of the AIF's war diaries, which at the time were "kept very badly".' - Does that last direct quote need a cite, given that it (might) be a tad contentious?
• 'He also sought to motivate the relevant personnel by demonstrating that the diaries were valued and would be important in ensuring that their unit received recognition for its achievements after the war' - Any examples of how he demonstrated this?
• 'In September 1917 the AWRS expanded its activities to include collecting artefacts from the French battlefields.' - Not the other battlefields in the Middle East as well?
• What was the War Trophies Commission, and his role in it that he needed the increase in rank?
• Last three paras of 'World War I' section are a bit fragmented, recommend merging into several larger paragraphs if possible.
• 'On 26 June 1942 he was Mentioned in Despatches for his service in October 1941.' - Why was he mentioned - what did he do to deserve it?
• 'As a result, the long-standing relationship between Treloar and Bazley deteriorated, and in 1945 the Memorial's board was forced to make a ruling on their different responsibilities' - Can we have some info on what the decision was, and how their responsibilities were divided?

Overall, a very good article, and I think it could easily be a Good Article. Pictures and references look good, as does the prose. Let me know if you want me to do that formally in the GAN process. Skinny87 (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in British sources thatI can trace that gives any reason for the Mention in 1942. They're so low level they are always the hardest to work out. David Underdown (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those comments - I'll work my way though them over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Teetotalism

"While Treloar was a strict teetotaler and non-smoker, he occasionally shared wine and cigarettes with Dargie." This line contains a non-sequitur. He touched alcohol or he didn't.Lexysexy (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've removed the 'strict', as this obviously doesn't seem to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Treloar (museum administrator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806095830/http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/P03568.001 to http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/P03568.001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Title

As an avid Trove user, I found that newspapers mostly refer to Treloar as "Lieutenant Colonel Treloar" or "J. L. Treloar" and almost never "John". Unfortunately there was no redirect from "J. L. Treloar", so it seemed sensible to make that the MOS:NAME. I have no problem with the current title, though it is rather clumsy, and when I think of Treloar, which is seldom, I think of "historian" or "archivist". I don't have any military reference books and I'm quite prepared to believe such sources call him "John". No matter. Second only to an article being reliable, referenced and well written, is that it should be easy to find. Redirects are cheap, and now that [[J. L. Treloar]] points to the article it's off my radar. Doug butler (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That was fairly common at the time, but is not commonly used in modern works. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Charles Bean is a close parallel. In his time it was always C. E. W. Bean. The difference is: his article has always been easy to find through redirects. Doug butler (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)