Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Leak/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [1].

John Leak

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the latest in my series about South Australian winners of the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest award for gallantry in combat. Leak won the VC at Pozieres soon after Australian troops joined the fighting on the Western Front in WWI by eliminating a German machine gun post that was holding up his battalion. Later in the war he was convicted of desertion, but the sentence was soon commuted and then suspended. He returned to combat and survived the war, but struggled with his war experiences for the rest of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Sources look reliable, no issues. Checked some of the online sources which support the content. Thoroughly researched. buidhe 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) @Peacemaker67: On first read, this looks short but sweet, and as someone who knows nothing about the subject, the prose is engaging. I will leave detailed comments later, but I had a few questions first.

  • Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in battle that could be awarded at that time to a member of the Australian armed forces. - for a lead sentence, this seems clunky. Is there a way to condense this?
  • He was the son of a miner, James Leak.[4][5] - Do you know anything about his mother? It's fine if you don't.
  • No, details of his early life are rather sketchy, and he didn't give interviews, so it is likely no-one will ever know for sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
  • In January 1917, Leak was charged with disciplinary offences for entering the Sergeants' Mess and demanding a drink, and disobeying his regimental sergeant major. He was convicted and underwent fourteen days detention as a result. On 23 February, he went absent without leave until 2 March, and was awarded four days detention as punishment. On 23 March, Leak was transferred from the 9th Battalion to the 69th Battalion. - This paragraph reads as if it was converted from a timeline. I would switch the wording up a little. By the way, is this supposed to be 14 days' detention?
  • but this time only received a fine - Does the source say why the punishment was different?
  • His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended - This seems pretty cursory. Any idea why the sentence was commuted?
  • Leak and his new wife - Don't know about you, but "new wife" sounds weird to me. Especially as it's given that this is his first wife, and the article is describing her as though she is his property or something.
  • A street in Gallipoli Barracks in Enoggera, Queensland, is named after him.[34] The John Leak monument was unveiled in Rockhampton on 20 April 2012 to honour Leak, who enlisted in the city.[35] In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said his family always travel to Rockhampton for the Remembrance Day service, which is held annually at his grandfather's memorial.[36] - This is in later life, but talks about legacy. Furthermore, the sentences don't necessarily flow: it sounds like these are three different things. Is it possible to expand on these?

I will make more comments later, but so far, so good. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: By the way, there's no rush on this. Just let me know when you have a chance to respond to these comments. Besides the notes I pointed out above, this looks quite good. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day epicgenius, thanks for looking at this, all done so far. Here are my edits. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Looks good. After looking over the page again, I couldn't find any new issues. I'll support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Victoria Cross image has two alts

Comments by Sarastro

[edit]

This is looking good to me. The only little concerns I have are that we sometimes seem to use a slightly too informal tone for an encyclopaedia, and perhaps there may be one or two instances of redundancy in the prose. Perhaps it would be worth having a look through for more examples other than the ones I've listed here. Feel free to argue or discuss any of these points. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to read it a few more times first after these have been addressed or cheerfully ignored! Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "before deploying south to the Somme river valley, where they would experience their first real fighting in France": I'm never sure why we need to use the "would" construction. Why not "where they experienced"? And I wonder if "real" is redundant here? If we are concerned that they had minor skirmishes before this, could we replace "fighting" with "action" or similar?
  • "The 9th Battalion was being held up by a pair of German machine guns. A furious bomb (hand grenade) fight began, with the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians being outranged by the German "egg" bombs. Leak ran forward and threw three Mills bombs into the machine gun post, then leapt into the post, attacking the garrison with his bayonet. By the time the rest of his platoon got to the post, Leak was wiping blood off his bayonet with his slouch hat.": To me, this sounds a little too much like a section from an action thriller rather than encyclopaedic (especially the first sentence which sets up tension, and the use of "furious"), but perhaps that is just me. However, I would appreciate a little more explanation of why the "egg" bombs (and maybe an explanation of what on earth "egg" bombs were) were outranged. Also, I wonder do we need the later extended quotation from the London Gazette which effectively just repeats what we have here. Finally, "with the [bombs] being outranged" is an example of "noun plus verbing" (I believe they're called fused participles) which I think are best avoided where possible, and could easily be done so here by rewording as "and the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians were outranged..."
  • "While in the UK, he got himself into trouble with the military authorities on two occasions.": "got himself in trouble" perhaps lacks a little of the formality we should be using?
  • "The 69th Battalion was soon disbanded to provide reinforcements to existing units": Redundancy?
  • "Leak was not coping with the effects of shell-fire": Again lacks a little formality, but I wonder if we could expand here. Presumably this comes from his evidence at the court-martial, but I think more explanation would help. If we know specifically what it was that troubled him, that would be a useful addition. If not, could we perhaps find something relevant that describes the effects of shell-fire, and maybe add it as a note?
  • "His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended, and Leak returned to his unit on 23 December.": The obvious question that will be asked when this is read... why?
  • "At some point his wife disappeared from his life": I'm guessing the answer will be "We don't know"... but why did she disappear? Presumably she was dead if he remarried? But I'm not sure "disappeared" is the best word. It leaves me with visions of spontaneous human combustion, and a pair of smoking shoes...
  • We kind of drip-feed information about his children, which I'd imagine reflects the sources. But I wonder would it be easier to say something like "They had eight children in total, although their first died within a year of her birth; the last was born in 1948."

Support: Changes look good and I think this comfortably meets the criteria. A very interesting tale. Sarastro (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, PM, thanks for your efforts with this one. I reviewed this at ACR and think it is has improved since then. I have only one suggestion:

Thanks for taking a look, AR. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day @FAC coordinators: this one is looking good. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry a couple of other suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • perhaps mention that he enlisted in Rockhampton as that explains the links with that town later in life, per: [2]?
    • perhaps mention ill health in later life related to being gassed ("bronchitis and emphysema") per: [3]
    • I wonder if citations # 35 and 36 are consistent in their format; for instance compare citation # 34
  • otherwise, coverage looks sufficient to me based on what appears in reliable sources; all information appears to be referenced; citations appear to be consistent in their format; the article has appropriate images (if another one was available, though, it would be nice to have one in the later life section);
All done, AR. Except for an image for the last section. If the weather comes good tomorrow I might nip over to Stirling and take a pic of his grave. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, hope you have a good weekend! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just to note that, while I'd generally prefer a little more commentary on a FAC, there's been no activity for two weeks so things are clearly stable, and at least one reviewer is not from the MilHist clan (which commented at the article's A-Class nom) so we have some breadth to the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Leak/archive1&oldid=940912425"