Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Issy Smith

Issy Smith

An interesting recipient of the Victoria Cross who, after initial difficulties, established himself in Australia post-war. I do intend to nominate this article for both GA and A-class status. I've resigned myself to accepting that this article has reached its full potential and will never be elevated to FA status :-(. Although modest in length, I believe the article to be comprehensive considering the paucity of material and limited availaibility of sources. Awkward prose undoubtedly exists (for obvious reasons ;-)), but needs to be identified by fresh eyes. Compare the article's present condition with a revision dated 11:15, 25 June 2007. As ever, constructive criticism is welcomed. SoLando (Talk) 13:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

A very nice article, overall; I see no reason why it could not be successfully nominated for FA status. (Certainly, WP:TROP has demonstrated that short articles can make it through the system.)

A few suggestions, though:

The citation might look better if it were placed in the prose at the point where he received the award, rather than being its own section. I'd also suggest using blockquote formatting rather than a template.
The references need to be cleaned up to a standard format; as it is, even the general list contains no less than three different styles.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 15:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodym555

I would agree with Kirill, it is overall, a very nice article. For FA, consistent formatting is a must. Wikipedia:Citation templates are popular but not compulsory. As long as they are consistent and have a Retrieved on parameter, they will be fine.

The 500 casualties part in First World War needs a reference. Statistics like that need citations.
I would integrate the citation between thoroughly than he did or around that area, it is up to you.
The currency needs to be piped, what kind of dollars? Also £ should be [[Pound Sterling|£]]
~~Only dates should be fully wikilinked, 13 December should not be wikilinked, December 1915 should not be wikilinked, only 13 December 1915 should be wikilinked.~~

Don't be disheartened. Smaller articles are getting through as long as they are comprehensive. I recently got Victoria Cross for New Zealand through the FA process and it is a small article. Given the paucity of references, you have done an excellent job! If you want me to fix some of the problems like dates, and other, obscure things i have come across in FAs, leave a message here or on my talk page. So, in summary: great work. Woodym555 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you might want to try and integrate some of the remaining VC migration text on the talk page or archive it. Given that it is inherently POV and almost 1st party it probably won't be a Reliable source though. Woodym555 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 13 December should indeed be wikilinked, as otherwise the date auto-formatter won't be able to handle it. Compare:

December 13 and 13 December
December 13 and 13 December

Kirill 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected,:( (in my defence, i think i should go to bed!!) though my point was really one about providing years with dates to avoid cases of ambiguity. In any case they seem to be having fun at MOSNUM debating the intricacies of this specific section of the MOS. For User:SoLando the link to the MOS is WP:MOSNUM#Dates and WP:MOSNUM#Autoformatting and linking. Good luck. Woodym555 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed response; I've essentially been inactive since World Cup 06. As Kirill stated, dates should be linked to enable account preferences. To answer:

The casualty total, although somewhat imprecise, will have to be replaced with the more ambiguous "hundreds" as the relevant source from which the figue was extracted is no longer in my possession, so Mileham will have to suffice.
Citation standardisation: Ah! I hadn't noticed the inconsistent formatting of the notes (hence the absence of page numbers for n16 and n18). Woody, I've long been disinclined to render citations using templates such as {{cite web}}
I have indeed observed the marked increase in relatively "small" FAs over the years, but I'm an inflexible cynic even though articles such as Hurricane Irene (2005) and Hurricane Ismael do tempt my curiosity as to whether Issy Smith would succeed.
I'm pleasantly surprised that more susbtantive prose issues (even if only minor and therefore not requiring a request at WP:LoCE) haven't been identified ;-). I'll address the linkage later.
And finally, I shall submit to consensus and incorporate Smith's citation into the main body. A separate section does appear to be unwarrented.

Thanks to both Kirill and Woodym.SoLando (Talk) 09:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies

I'll echo Kirill and Woody's remarks about an interesting and well-written article. Some thoughts ...

If you can be bothered, you could eke it out (a bit) I suppose by explaining the multiple year references for his DOB.
Some more information about what he did in the Middle East would be interesting, if available. According to British Regiments, 1/Manchester were in Egypt Mar-Dec 1918, so they may well have been in Allenby's 1918 Summer/Autumn blitzkrieg (Megiddo, Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo).
Picky point: can he really be called English as against British?

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your comments and contribution to the article's development.

I've been attempting to determine the most coherent formulation to explain the date discrepencies, ideally in the form of a single sentence. Any suggestions? There is even some confusion regarding where he grew up, but I consider the Australian Dictionary of Biographies to be the most authoritive source available.
There is indeed a wealth of information documenting the 1st Manchesters' activities in the Middle East (1 Manchesters were engaged in the Megiddo Offensive), but unfortunately almost nothing concerning Issy Smith. That has been a recurring issue with many recipients of the VC.
As England arguably didn't constitute his primary home due to his emigration, perhaps British-Australian? Although I am unsure whether he was granted Australian citizenship. SoLando (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure ...

I wouldn't bother to explain them. There just wasn't the same obsession with recording dates that we have now (though it's amazing really that this remains unresolved: as his father was French, there's bound to be a French Acte de naissance on file somewhere and his attestation - with a DOB, which he may have lied about - on joining the British Army will probably still exist at PRO Kew but both of these are original research, of course). Instead, I'd be tempted to use one date (the most authoritative) in the opening paragraph, with a footnote giving its source to the effect of "Australian Biographical Dictionary etc. Other sources differ: 18nn (SourceA) and 18nn (SourceB)".
Yep.
This came up elsewhere in talk a month or two back (I can't find the article). I don't think that Australian citizenship existed until well after his death. Certainly, Australians were issued with British passports until 1949.

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101

Apologies, I don't have time right now to look through the article at length, but I don't believe there is much to add to those comments given above. I would however like to show you Thomas Crisp and Ronald Niel Stuart, both of which I took through FAC. In addition, if you are able in anyway to get your hands on this book [1], you'll find it very helpful in expanding the article and its refs a little more, i have used others in the series to great effect. All the best, good job and keep it up.--Jackyd101 00:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]