Talk:Frederick Birks/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I would suggest moving the description of the VC and appending it after '...veteran and recipient of the Victoria Cross.' to make it clearer and avoid repetitiveness.

   'In Wales during 1910' - Since he never left Wales before this, I don't think the first two words are strictly needed.

   What unit of the Royal Artillery? If unknown, just say 'with the service' or something similar.

   'Birks went on to work in Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria as a labourer and later, a waiter.' Suggest replacing first word with 'He' to avoid repetition in previous and succeeding sentences.

   'At the age of nineteen, Birks lived in Largs Bay in late March 1914, starting a relationship with sixteen year-old Suzy Gelvin' - 'In late March 1914, at the age of nineteen, Birks lived in Largs Bay and started a relationship with sixteen year-old Suazy Gelvin.'

   'After stopping in Albany, arriving on 10 December.' Fragment of a sentence.

   'The 2nd Brigade were also sent to Cape Helles, where assisted in the attack on Krithia' - Missing a word!

   'On 26 June 1915, Birks was wounded shrapnel but returned to service the next day, remaining on Gallipoli until 9 September.' - And another

   'On 9 September Birks received another recommendation, and was awarded Military Medal on 4 October 1916.' - A third word missing, and also - what was the recommendation for, ie what did he do?

   'Birks took classes at the Australian 1st Division school in France, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the 6th Battalion on 4 May 1917.' - This is a bit abrupt. How did he go from corporal to 2nd Lt? Is it linked to the recommendation for the MM mentioned above? It's also odd that he went from stretcher-bearer to infantry officer - any idea why?

   'Birks' battalion were ordered to attack and capture the German line parallel to them, and the men moved towards their positions from Zillebeke on the night of 18 September, coming under some fire from gas shells' - Where were these positions, which I assume were the launching point of the attack?

   'They were attacked with bombs, and the corporal was seriously wounded. Birks continued on alone' - Wikilink bomb?

   'Birks assisted in the reorganisation and consolidation of Australian men who had drifted away from their unit' - 'He also' at the start to avoid repetition?

   'The next day, 21 September, enemy shelling in response to the movement of Allied artillery had buried some men in Birks' platoon. Another shell aimed at the C Coy post killed Birks and four others.[12] Birks had attempted to dig out these men, "standing exposed", but was killed before he could save them.[4]' - Confused order. Suggest merging last two sentences, as it's otherwise disjointed, with Birks alive, dead, then alive again (seemingly)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   'He is known to have lived in Norwood, a suburb of Adelaide, and in Hobart.' - Citation needed, and possibly place this before the 'late March 1914' info.

   What makes 'The Victoria Cross' website reliable?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears to be an edit-war taking place over placement of ribbons. If this is not resolved one way or another, I can't pass this article.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An excellent article, just needs a few things to do to get it to GA level. Skinny87 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I have made the prose fixes, and the only 'points' remaining:

   'On 9 September Birks received another recommendation, and was awarded Military Medal on 4 October 1916.' - A third word missing, and also - what was the recommendation for, ie what did he do?

   'Birks took classes at the Australian 1st Division school in France, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the 6th Battalion on 4 May 1917.' - This is a bit abrupt. How did he go from corporal to 2nd Lt? Is it linked to the recommendation for the MM mentioned above? It's also odd that he went from stretcher-bearer to infantry officer - any idea why?

   'Birks' battalion were ordered to attack and capture the German line parallel to them, and the men moved towards their positions from Zillebeke on the night of 18 September, coming under some fire from gas shells' - Where were these positions, which I assume were the launching point of the attack?

   It appears the numerous dates have confused me in regards to the MM date, as the AIF Project and ADB give conflicting dates. I'm at a loss as what to do, and that was the best I could interpret from the sources.

   By all accounts, he was selected for commissioning (likely as a result of the MM) and 2nd Lt. is the lowest rank that a commissioned officer can take.

   I'll look into the last point in re to the positions. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   I hope youse don't mind me butting in here, but I was hopping I would be able to help in regards to the Military Medal/commissioning issue. For more information on the award, I would advise taking a peak at the digitalised recommendation copies located at the Australian War Memorial website ([1], [2] & [3]). I know that with the Australian forces during the First World War, infantry soldiers often volunteered or were allocated roles as stretcher bearers briefly due to the high number of casualties, so it is likely Birks was an infantry soldier, who had acted as a stretcher bearer, and was recommended for commissioning due to (as Backslash Forwardslash states) bravery or leadership. This is, however, OR and probably cannot be sourced. ;-) Also, I doubt that Birks was recommended for the MM on the directive of Birdwood himself. The original recommendation would have been written up by his battalion CO, passed on and approved at brigade HQ, passed on and approved at divisional HQ (one can see in the above recommendations that they are from the divisional CO) and then passed on to Birdwood as corps CO. I think that ADB is actually saying that Birdwood presented Birks with the MM, or ribbon of such, on this date. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   This makes more sense. I had been trying to find these after seeing them quoted in the Memoryshare source. I think it's clearer how the dates fit together; I'll work on the prose of the section now. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   Just to confirm, he was recommended on 10 June, [4], awarded it in July (ADB), and recommended again on 9th September? The AIF lists him as being awarded the medal on 4 October 1916, perhaps there were bars or maybe he was given the medal and ribbon on separate dates? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   Try not to confuse the dates (and yourself!) too much. ;-) The recommendations I provided above state the exact date of action; the London Gazette was when the award was announced, made public and official; the ADB states the date of action as in July, and that it was presented by Birdwood, by not exactly when; the AIF Project states when the award was announced in the Commonwealth Gazette, but, to me, seems to confuse itself. I would recommend that you describe Birks' actions as best you can (mentioning the date of occurrence), and then state that it was announced in the London Gazette. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   I've reworded the section, how does it read now? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

   It is a little confusing, as it implies that Birks was recommended for the MM twice, and the prose is split, with other information in between. I would just state that "On 10 June 1916, Birks (explain actions, and situation). For his "devotion to duty and good work", (cite recommendation) he was recommended for the Military Medal. The announcement for the decoration was publiched in the London Gazette on (insert date and cite)." I think something along these lines would be good, and then mention that the award was presented to Birks by Birdwood. As something of an example, you might like to have a little look at Percy Statton, and how the info on his MM is presented there, though add your own style and flair to it. ;-) I hope this is helpful. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

   I've had another stab at it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

   Just about there! Sorry for being such a pain in the butt. I would keep all mentions of the MM together, not fragimented by the mention of his promotion in between. Also, the article states that Birks was awarded his MM by Birdwood on 4 October 1916, but we are kind of putting two and two together and do not know for sure. If you are sick of figiting with this, just give me a shout, if you want, and I'll have a stab at it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

   If you can reword it better, by all means go ahead. I'm one edit away from removing the paragraph. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(od)Can this be confirmed as completed and fixed, now? Skinny87 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm fairly sure the MM issues have been resolved. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks good to me, so I've passed it. I'm sure that any further fixes can be done without compromising it's current status. Well done! Skinny87 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)