Talk:John Waddy (British Army officer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Copyedited a bit for clarity/flow/style - pls let me know if you're not happy with any of it.

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):
The detail of his Second World War career is fine but does tend to overbalance the info on his post-war career. Do I assume you’ve pretty well exhausted your sources for the latter phase of his military career?
Ian, I worked a bit on this article, and although Ranger Steve did the lions part of the work, I can confirm that my own sources don't even mention Waddy, let alone his post-war service - neither Michael Asher's new history of the SAS, or Tony Geraghty's post-war history upto 1980. Which is odd, quite frankly given the post he held. But, there we are. Skinny87 (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected as much - if that's how it is, that's how it is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
I think we could eliminate who has had a long and distinguished career and let the reader decide that. Suggest an opening that acts like an intro to the intro, e.g. Colonel John Llewellyn Waddy OBE (born 17 June 1920) is a former member of the British Army who served in the Second World War and the Malayan Emergency, before becoming one of the first Directors of the SAS.

While we’re at it, convention seems to be that we only include the ranks of one-stars and above in the lead – personally I don’t mind too much since colonel's right on the cusp but if you go for ACR someone might object.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

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:
Nice article, mate, if you could respond to those few points above in the next week or so that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian. Thanks for the c/e, it does read much better. I have made one minor mod to the last line- using 'became' made it seem as if he only became an authority on the battle after he wrote the book (and also that he might no longer live!), so I've switched to 'is'. I've also changed the lede - pretty much copying exactly what you suggested. You're right about the lack of info on his later career. I was disappointed that Geraghty had nothing, as it's otherwise a fine book, so I raided my local library and could only find the refs I've so far included. There might be an obscure ref in some creased copy of an army newsletter somewhere, but I haven't found it yet. Seems to be a problem with a few Arnhem vets that there's a total bias in info for that part of their life - I'm having the same problem with Robert Henry Cain, who's a VC winner but doesn't seem to feature in any text that isn't about Arnhem! Shame Waddy hasn't written an autobiography, as I'm sure it would be interesting reading.

Anyway, hope the change's are ok. Didn't know about the rank thingy.... might mean changing a few articles! If you don't mind I'll leave it in for the moment, as you say it's borderline and it seems appropriate to me.

Lemme know if there's anything else, cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's all fine - passed, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks Ian and Skinny! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]