Talk:John Whittle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll give this a read and come back with comments in the next 24 hours or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Intro:

• "Whittle was serving as a sergeant during the First World War when he was decorated with the Victoria Cross in 1917, following two separate actions performed against attacking German forces during their retreat to the Hindenburg Line." is a pretty long sentence. Suggest trimming a little to "Whittle was serving as a sergeant in the First World War when he was decorated with the Victoria Cross, following two separate actions against German forces during their retreat to the Hindenburg Line in 1917." This eliminates a repeated "during" and removes the slightly confusing juxtoposition of the Germans attacking while they're retreating (I know what you mean but it looks odd in print).

Substituted in favour of your's. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not a stumbling block but the second para is quite long. You could begin a third para starting at "Wounded three times during the war..."

Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First World War:

• "On 6 August 1915, Whittle transferred to the Australian Imperial Force in order to actively serve overseas". First off, "actively serve overseas" sounds a bit clunky and should probably be replaced by "see active service overseas" or simply "serve overseas". Beyond that, however, the motivation doesn't ring true to me since he'd already seen active service overseas in the Boer War - comment?

What I ment in this case was so he could actively serve overseas in the First World War, as no permanent Australian Commonwealth unit was deployed overseas; only the AIF and Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force were. However, I have changed it to "in order to see active service overseas during the war." Feel free to tweak, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

All check out.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

Intro:

• He seems to have had a few run-ins with authority during the war, almost to the extent that I wonder if it's worth mentioning in the intro as a general point. If so, it might be a new first line to the proposed third para I suggested above, which would also help fill the para out a bit.

Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First World War:

• "In late November, Whittle was admitted to hospital suffering from an illness" - I'm guessing no source mentions just what the illness was?

Nope. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Rallying his men, Whittle rushed the post and commenced bombing the occupants with grenades. He chased the men as they began to retreat down the trench line, before the Germans were forced from the position." Seriously, which men did he chase as they began to retreat, his or the Germans?

Changed to: "He then proceeded to chase the Germans as they began to retreat down the trench line, before they were forced from the position."

• "...forgo four days detention". Don't we mean "undergo four days detention"?

Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Checks out.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

Checks out.

• 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):

All check out.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Generally this is very good, as usual. The Victoria Cross subsection really races along, I got quite caught up in reading it to see what happened next - well done! If you can address the above points in the next week, I'll have no probs passing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, Ian. I think I have addressed all of your concerns above, and have replied to each appropriately. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Made one minor change/link but everything else looks fine. Have to rush off so won't be able to complete all the 'paperwork' for an hour or so, but in the meantime this is a pass - good work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)