Talk:Gordon Bennett (general)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Initial comments

• Spelling here - "follow up" probably should be "follow-up" (I think).
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• This caption is a bit "wooden" and could probably be worded away from the AWM caption to make it suit the article a bit more (it is written in a fairly long winded manner too which could be avoided by much of the context the caption is trying to provide is already supported by the article around it) - "Malaya. January 1942. Informal portrait of Major General Gordon Bennett, General Officer Commanding Australian Army Forces in Malaya, during a pause in his briefing of war correspondents (not seen)".
  • Shortened. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure this is effective: "the Australian version of the Home Guard", maybe something like "similar to the British Home Guard", or even "the Australian version of the British Home Guard" would provide more context to the reader without having to click on the link?
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• I wonder if some (very brief) mention of the emergence of the Singapore strategy in the 1920s (and what it was) and its subsequent effect on interwar Defence policy might help provide context. [Perhaps see Australian Army during World War II for something along the lines of what I was thinking].
  • Added a brief mention, but I wasn't really sure how to introduce it. Went with something that links with the below comment. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• "In February 1941, the 8th Division's headquarters, along with one of its brigades – the 22nd – was posted to Malaya in February 1941." Why? i.e. concern about the Japanese threat etc.
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• "Bennett's command was not engaged in the initial stages of the fighting..." Why? Perhaps mention British and Indian forces being engaged and pushed back instead etc...
  • Mentioned. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• "Bennett's escape was initially regarded as praiseworthy." I think even at this time there was some criticism, albeit within military circles (Lodge writes "The response in Australia to Bennett's escape was mixed" for instance). However as the narrative currently reads I get the impression the first criticism was following Percival's letter in 1945. Perhaps very briefly mention the counter opinion to that expressed by Curtin (per Lodge)?
  • Tweaked. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Some explicit statement about the significance of the fall of Singapore might benefit readers that are not familiar with the topic - i.e. largest British defeat etc (perhaps maybe add a sentence at the start of the "Postwar inquiries" section)?
  • Added something in the section above, but it is possibly just a throw away. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Bennett's gripe about British and Indian troops in Singapore probably cannot go completely unchallenged and it might need to be clarified that he was also critical of the performance of some Australian forces as well. Equally his opinions reportedly differed considerably from Percival's etc. Whilst I don't think the job of this article is to dissect the fall of Singapore or even to cover which force was alleged to have done / not done what and by whom I think some very brief mention of this might be req'd at least. For instance Callaghan appears to provide a more balanced assessment which might be used here for this purpose (this is covered in Murfett et al, p. 360 - pls see the Battle of Singapore article for what I'm referring to). This doesn't need to be covered in depth, all I'm thinking of is probably a single sentence.
  • Added a brief clause. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• The article looks well cited to me but uses a mix of styles (long cites, followed by short cites after first use in a single "references" section). Whilst I think this is probably good enough for GA if you want to take it higher I'd suggest adopting standard short cites for all footnotes in a "notes" section and placing long cites in a "references" sections like you usually use in most of your articles.
  • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• The external links for the AS official histories were recently moved by the AWM again (without a redirect in place) so they will need to be updated.
  • Replaced. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'll get to a full review after these initial points have been addressed. Of cse more than happy to discuss anything you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these comments, I think I've responded to them all. Please let me know if these changes are adequate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Those changes look good to me, I'll look to read over it and provide a finalized review tomorrow. Good work getting to these so quickly. Anotherclown (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks, good night. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • This seems a little redundant: "...to an advanced position on Pine Ridge, south of Lone Pine" (Lone Pine twice), perhaps reword slightly?
    • G'day, I wasn't sure about this, I couldn't see the repetition of Lone Pine (Pine Ridge and Lone Pine are separate places, I think). I just deleted "south of Lone Pine" because the link to Lone Pine was a bit of an easter egg. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Mate sorry this is my mistake, I'm not sure why but when I read it I read "Pine Ridge" as "Lone Pine". Happy for you to restore your original text if you want. Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Done, no worries. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a little unclear - "was isolated and wiped out to the last man...", do you mean "killed"?
  • "but fortunately the commander of the 1st Division...", maybe lose "fortunately" here
  • "Bennett spent Christmas in Southampton" - wikilink Southampton
  • "defending the Suez Canal..." - wikilink Suez Canal
  • "Bennett's battalion HQ" - the abbrev "HQ" needs to be introduced here
  • "they were married in Chelsea" - wikilink Chelsea
  • Repetitive language here "He led the brigade for the remainder of the war on the Western Front, leading" (led and leading, maybe use "commanded" or something similar for one of these)?
  • Wording doesn't seem right here: "He was received the Order of Danilo..." (pls check)
  • "He was offered his old position back..." at the AMP Society I assume? Perhaps clarify?
    • I think I've got all of these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • The article is sufficiently referenced to WP:RS and seems to reflect the sources available.
  • No issues with OR I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered for GA.
  • There has been quite a bit written on the topic of Bennett's actions in Singapore in a number of other works not used here, however I think that this article covers the literature sufficiently for GA in my opinion, making use of a range of books as well as the official histories, and recent journal articles.
  • "shocked Australians, resulting in the capture of almost 15,000 Australian soldiers..." perhaps mention the number of British and Indian soldiers captured as they formed the bulk of the garrison?
    • Added "many more Indian and British soldiers". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes that works for me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • Its a controversial subject but there were no issues I could see. All major viewpoints seem to be covered.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images mostly seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
    • Does File:Gordon Bennett.jpg need a PD US tag?
      • Actually, I don't think so. The UK government has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyright applies worldwide. If only the Australian government would do the same... Happy to discuss if you disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • No worries at all, I'll admit Commons is a complete mystery to me so I thought I'd better ask just in case. Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article is in good shape and covers the topic well in my opinion. Just a few more points above (mostly prose) to deal with / discuss. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your efforts with this one. It needed a bit of work, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Passing now, good work. Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)