Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rupert Downes

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rupert Downes

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another article on a an Australian Army general. Also another one on a doctor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets the A class criteria in my opinion. Just a small point (and it doesn't affect A class), could an image be added in the Inter war years section to break up the text a little? Also, probably needs to be checked for endashes in the citations before it goes to FA. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:CREDENTIAL, postnominals of academic degrees should not be used following the subject's name. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support

I'd recommend changing all the mentions of the Great War to First World War, I think that's generally more accepted.
- Done.
"With so many people and horses, sanitation was a challenge, a discipline in this area was initially slack, as it had been with disastrous results at Gallipoli." Huh? Please rephrase that.
- Done.
"Downes repeatedly clashed with the British medical officers of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF), whose attitudes Downes regarded as endangering his troops,[21] especially the DMS EEF, Colonel A. E. C. Keble.[22]" Please rephrase, it implies that the attitudes endangered Col. Keble.
- Done.
"Atr the same time," An extraneous r, perhaps?
- Corrected.
Can you explain the bit about his appointment that didn't happen because Blamy had already appointed someone else? How would that happen, were two people in charge of it and acting without communicating? That confuses me.
- Done. Let me know if you are even more confused now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, makes more sense than before. – Joe N 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix these, all relatively minor, and it will be ready for A-class. – Joe N 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All look good now. – Joe N 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support w/Comment One disambiguous link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead is extremely long and could do with some culling.
- Done.
Ranks should be decapitalised unless attached to a name (or in the infobox).
- Done.
Mentioned in Despatches is spelt with an "e" not "i".
- Done. I don't know why that gets past the spell checker.
Is there any further information you would be able to add on Downes' CMG and ~~six~~ four Mentions in Despatches in the First World War?
- Done. Added London Gazette references.
When the official histories are mentioned they should be in italics.
- Done.
Terms or phrases should only be linked the first time they are mentioned. A few things have been linked multiple times.
- The MOS says "avoiding duplicate links in the same section of an article".
  - Well, I tend to think major general doesn't really need to be linked six times. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done!
Endashes are required between page ranges used in the citations.
- Done. A bot will convert them all to Unicode. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.