Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Walter Peeler

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.

Walter Peeler

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

Featured article candidates/Walter Peeler/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it now meets the criteria. I have just significantly expanded this article on an Australian Victoria Cross recipient—yes, another one of those ;-)—from a stub, and have thoughts of eventually taking it to FAC. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've just reviewed and passed for GA, during which I also performed a copyedit for prose. So for detail, referencing, and prose I'm quite satisfied that this meets A-Class criteria - well done! Other points:

Seemed to be one or two issues with external links according to the checker. Dabs and alt text were fine.
- I checked the external links tool when I nominated the article and again now. Despite the tools complaints, the two links work fine. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Structurally I raised the issue in the GA review about “Early life” and “Interbellum” being just single paragraphs that could be combined with the First and Second World War sections that follow them, though I noted Bryce's rationale about keeping them separate due to the much larger size of the war sections. I also pointed out that anything with “bellum” in it evokes the American Civil War for me and that the tried and tested “Inter-war years” or “Between the wars” are more commonly associated with the time between the world wars and might be better employed, which I'd still suggest.
- As I said before, I still prefer separate “Early life” and “Interbellum” sections, ~~and the use of “Interbellum” though will consider changing it if there is enough support.~~ Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per Dana's comments below, I have changed it to “Inter-war years”. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as images go, all are PD-Australia, however most are on en:Wiki rather than Commons, so recommend migrating them. Also, particularly for FAC, the PD-1996 template should be added to all at that point to satisfy US PD assertion requirements. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason why most are on en-Wiki is because I did not upload them; that is the same for the missing PD-1996 template. I will go tag them to be moved, and add the template at the same time. Thanks for the review, ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Support

Victoria Cross section, "which was further exasterbated by". Is this supposed to be "exacerbated"?
- Yep, sorry I'm a horrible speller. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interbellum section - I would agree with Ian on this - "bellum" evokes thoughts of the American Civil War, and I would prefer "Inter-war years". This is secondary to the fact that many readers may not understand "Interbellum", and "Inter-war years" is much more likely to be understood.
- Well, I guess I have to abide by consensus on this one, so changed. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defence of Java section, "and was believed to have been killed attempting to evade capture." Have thoughts changed in recent years? If not, it should be "is believed" to show that this is still what is thought today.
- Fixed; still the belief today, although his body was never discovered and he was last seen walking away with some grenades in his hands saying something along the lines of "No surrender for me!" just hours before Singapore fell to the Japanese. Bit of a history lesson, there. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this looks like a great article. I am looking forward to supporting soon! Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments, Dana. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my support for this article, thank you for your speed in responding to my comments. I apologize for not getting back to this more quickly - I was away for the weekend. Dana boomer (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An excellent article, which I believe meets A class criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:32, 27 November 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.