Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/James Dutton (Royal Marines officer)
I've got this to GA from scratch. I'm not sure it's comprehensive enough for A-class, but I'd appreciate comments aimed in that general direction as well as any suggestions for general improvement. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
[edit]- For A Class I would expect to see more on his early life. where was he born, parents, schooling. Also the one line in the Personal life section would need expanding.
- Should the disambiguation not be Royal Marine officer ?
- Is there nothing more on his service in the Falklands war
Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Dank
[edit]Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- Even though it's the usual name, I'm not a fan of "40 Commando", at least at the first occurrence. I'd prefer "40 Commando Battalion" (if that name is used) or "the 40 Commando battalion" (if not).
- That sounds horrible to me. I can see where you;re coming from, but that is the unit name and I've never heard "battalion" appended to it.
- Many readers aren't quick to pick up on on the clue provided by the capitalization, and at least for a moment, they'll be wondering why it was special that he commanded 40 commandos. "40 Commando" doesn't to my ear sound like something that even could be a proper noun. Of course, the reader will figure it out pretty quickly as they read ... but the difference between good and bad copyediting is, the good stuff doesn't force the reader to put a puzzle together. How about: "the battalion known as 40 Commando"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds horrible to me. I can see where you;re coming from, but that is the unit name and I've never heard "battalion" appended to it.
- "Lieutenant General": Almost all jobs and all ranks are lowercased unless they appear right before a person's name.
- Indeed, I think I mentioned this at a current ACR, as well!
- Ah, it appears somebody intorduced this by removing the rank from the first sentence. Now reverted.
- Indeed, I think I mentioned this at a current ACR, as well!
- "took off": In general, use quotation marks sparingly, and only when they add something. The quotation marks here are suggesting that the phrase is informal; better would be to replace it with a phrase that isn't.
- I'm inclined to leave this as is, since it is a direct quote and it's not ever so often you can pinpoint the moment someone becomes destined for the top (without indulging in heavy doses of OR).
- Okay, I buy that. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to leave this as is, since it is a direct quote and it's not ever so often you can pinpoint the moment someone becomes destined for the top (without indulging in heavy doses of OR).
- "Newspaper The Times": just The Times.
- "Commander UK Amphibious Forces (COMUKAMPHIBFOR).He relinquished CGRM/COMUKAMPHIBFOR in June ...": "Commander UK Amphibious Forces. He relinquished the position in June ...". If you can find any support for it at all, I recommend a comma after "Commander". - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I would, but the commaless version is the name of the post and thus what's used in almost all sources. Thanks very much for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. These noun-strings are foreign to American eyes and ears, so I just ask that we make an effort to make them digestible if the sources support it ... if they don't, then you're quite right to keep it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I would, but the commaless version is the name of the post and thus what's used in almost all sources. Thanks very much for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Ian Rose
[edit]- Generally seems close to usual standards as exemplified by say Michael Walker.
- Structure, images and referencing appear sound, and on a brief read-through prose looks okay.
- Overall it does seem a bit light-on for A-Class, however, mainly in the initial part of his career.
- Like Jim, I could wish for more on early life, though I gather there's more now than when you started -- this is not a stopper in itself IMO.
- However I notice there are no dates in the early life section. This confuses me a bit because I'm not sure how he could be born in 1954, then attend uni and gain a degree, all before he joins the military at the age of 18. He must've been quite a prodigy! Is it possible he in fact attended uni after joining up?
- He might well have done an "in-service degree.
- The 70s and 80s is where there seems to be a pretty big hole, content-wise, that for me keeps it in GA territory only at the moment. First there's nothing at all from 1975 till the Falklands in 1982 -- and again I agree with Jim that one might expect a bit more on the Falklands itself -- then there's nothing on the rest of the decade except a general statement on staff positions.
- From 1990 on I think you're doing fine as far as detail goes.
- To summarise, I'd like to see this A-Class, but I think we need a bit more meat in the 70s and 80s. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Shimgray emailed me his Who's Who entry. There's a bit more in there that I haven't added yet, including some of his early postings and commands. I'm not entirely sure there'll be enough for A-class, since he doesn't seem to have been pegged as a high-flier until he was a brigadier (and that seems to have been a case of being in the right place at the right time) and then there wasn't much for him to do after ISAF beause he was already higher than the officer supposed to be the highest-ranking Royal Marine. I was pretty chuffed to get it to GA, but I'll see what else I can find. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)