Talk:Joseph Maxwell/GA1

GA 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)

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]
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):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Additional comments

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)