Talk:John Grayburn/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   'He later joined the Parachute Regiment and at the age of 26 he jumped into action in the Battle of Arnhem.' - 'Jumped into action' is rather unencyclopedic.

   'He was part of the small force that was able to reach Arnhem road bridge and between 17–20 September he led his men with gallantry and determination' - I don't think the second 'he' is needed there.

   'Although wounded he never flagged and constantly exposed himself to enemy fire, moving among his men and encouraging them, and seemed oblivious to danger.' - This whole sentence reads slightly jingoistic, Commando-y, but I think it could suffice if the 'oblivious' part is removed.

   'He was transferred to the 2nd Battalion the following year and took command of 2 Platoon, A Company.' - What the second battalion is isn't clear - I'd add something like 'the regiment's second battalion.'

   'Only a small force managed to hold one end of the Arnhem road bridge before being overrun on the 21' - 'overrun on 21 September.'

   'The rest of the division became trapped in a small pocket west of the bridge and had to be evacuated on the 25 September.' - 'evacuated on 25 September'

   'Major General Roy Urquhart's original plan...' Who is Major-General Urquhart? He is introduced without making it clear he commanded 1st Airborne Division. He might have been a Corps or even Army Group commander.

   'In turn Lieutenant Colonel John Frost...' - Same problem here, though less so - I would clarify that Frost commanded the battalion.

   'In turn Lieutenant Colonel John Frost chose Major Digby Tatham-Warter's A Company to lead their march from the drop zones to the bridges' - 'lead the battalion's march...' and remove the duplicate 'In turn'.

   'Tatham-Warter, out of lack of confidence in Airborne radio kit...' I would rewrite as 'Tatham-Warner, due to a lack of confidence...'

   'A Company was not significantly delayed by the German patrols it encountered later, although the presence of cheering crowds as they passed through Oosterbeek delayed the battalion a little' - Moves from discussing the company and then moves to the battalion as if both were the same thing; I recommend altering it to 'delayed the battalion a little as a whole.'

   'This sector came under increasing attack from tanks and infantry of the 10 SS' - 'the 10 SS' sounds like ten SS infantry, suggest rephrasing/clarifying.

   'The tank's machine gun mowed him down' - 'Mowed down' isn't encyclopedic really; you can keep the same tone but make it encylcopedic, imo, with 'cut down.'

   'Despite their best efforts the rest of the division were unable to reinforce Frost's men at the bridge, who fought into the early hours of Thursday 21 before finally being overrun' - Fragmentary sentence, needs to be merged with previosu paragraph or expanded upon.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   'Although most graves in the cemetery are organised by unit, Grayburn's is separate from the other parachute formations' - Rather unusual, do we know why at all?

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.:

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:

Good article, needs some prose work before passing. Skinny87 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Skinny. I've made the prose changes; the lead was a hangover from the article before I started it (what was in the lead was all there was I think). I should have just written a new lead instead of trying to rejig what there was! Think I've got everything else. Grayburn's grave is an odd one. All the sources agree that he was discovered three years later, but Middlebrook then goes on to say "but why his grave wasn't added to an airborne plot is unknown". I imagine it's almost certainly connected to the fact he wasn't buried at the same time as most of the other soldiers there, but no refs state that so I went for a 'state the facts, let the reader decide' approach. Does it work? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any problems; lede is fixed, as is the prose, and if the sources don't say anything, then we can't do anything. Promoting this. Skinny87 (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, cheers Skinny! Ranger Steve (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)