Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Maxwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJoseph Maxwell has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 6, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Current status: Good article

GA Review

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

Very good article thus far, meticulously sourced and cited; just placing on hold while awaiting response to a couple of points below. There's a space of seven days for these issues to be addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Parts of the prose are a very close to the source text and require some rejigging to be put into your own words. Examples I noticed when comparing the article with Maxwell's ADB bio were in the Later Life section re. his marriage to and divorce from Mabel (e.g. "describing himself as a reporter, he married a 19-year-old tailoress, Mabel Maxwell (not a relative)") and the opening of VC Corner (e.g. "He was adamant that his Victoria Cross would not end up in the collection as he considered that "lumping" the VCs together would cheapen the award"). Happy to offer suggestions for rewording if you'd prefer to discuss. Only made a detailed comparision in the Later Life section but this observation may apply elsewhere in the article.
    (Shame faced) Sorry, I guess I got a little lazy in some sections. I'll have another look and change it around. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having re-read the article, I remember why I wrote these to sections in the article pretty close to the source text: I could not think of another way to place the information in the text without reducing its importance and making it sound like gibberish. However, I have had another look at the wedding and divorce section and have rewritten this slightly, although I think it is still close to the original. I was unable to think of another way I could write the information relating to his views of his VC not going to the AWM, but I am open to suggestions if you have any. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, many's the time I've racked my brains about how to reword bits from ADB and AWM, especially when their level of detail is often so close to our own. How about something like: "He was determined that his Victoria Cross would not wind up in the collection, believing that the award would be devalued by "lumping" the VCs together." Also, re. Mabel, do we know whether "dissolved" means "annulled" (I'm assuming not divorced because it was Catholic), because you could use the latter instead, and perhaps drop the "Mabel as petitioner" entirely, or change to "at Mabel's instigation" or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really like your wording in regards to his VC and the AWM, so have substituted that in. :) Relating to the marriage and its dissolvement, I have changed it to "upon Mabel's instigation", but I have no idea if "dissolved" and "annulled" have the same meaning in this case, so it remains "dissolved". Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll do - all good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Given that image Maxwell Hamilton grave P01312.003.JPG is dated after 1955, can we confirm exactly which criterion under which we're claiming PD for this pic?
    E. It is my understanding after reading the copyright section on the Australian War Memorial website that all photographs in their possession come under the "Government owned" category, and are free of copyright if they were published more than 50 years ago; which is the case of this image. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I figured - it may not be a requirement but I think it would be useful to put the criterion in the Permission section in the template above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get over to Commons and do that now. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Additional comments

[edit]

These do not affect the GA but are included for consideration:

  • I know you and I have discussed before, but technically "Joe" appears to be a diminutive rather than a nickname.
    Perhaps, however it is my style to list it in the "nickname" section as it is neater and out of the way. If you do feel so strongly about it though, I will change it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, it's not something I'll lose sleep over any more than I think you would - not fussed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Often described as Australia's second most decorated soldier during the First World War" - suggest "of the First World War" as during sounds like that was when he was described as such, which I don't think is meant.
    Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article, mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure, keep 'em coming - definite pass, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Section Honours and awards

[edit]

Due to the way the section Honours and awards is, this article has several things that I consider problematic:

  • The section is not usable from the TOC
  • The section is at the end of the article which doesn't follow common usage, see MOS:ORDER
  • Goes against Wikipedia:Accessibility_dos_and_don'ts ("Don't use scrolling lists or collapsible sections to conceal content.") and MOS:COLLAPSE
  • The section is actually short therefore there is no need for all this trouble

Aisteco (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image -- comment moved from long-closed GAN page

[edit]

I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO COMMENT ON TALK PAGES but this is a horrible pic of joe. Can someone please upload the pic at http://www.coalandcommunity.com/resources/P01383.jpg I mean seriously wtf. Hoffies (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Hoffies[reply]

That link doesn't work for me but, in any case, I see no obvious problems with the current picture. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Joseph Maxwell. 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:

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) 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Maxwell. 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:

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) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Maxwell&oldid=1246012371"