Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Edward Elliott
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Harold Edward Elliott edit
Portrait of Australian Brigader-General Harold "Pompey" Elliott
- ... that Brigadier General Pompey Elliott (pictured) convinced his men that his horse could spot men who were unshaven or incorrectly dressed? Source: "The men of the 15th Brigade credited this charger with the ability to notice and point out to Gen Elliott any man who had not shaved or was not dressed properly. It got this enviable reputation in this way. The charger was a well trained stock horse and the slightest pressure on his shoulder would cause him to stop. Gen Elliott, in galloping along the line, would press his charger's shoulder when he noticed a man improperly dressed and the old horse would stop immediately with his head outstretched towards the man, and his ears back. The man, not noticing the signal to the charger to stop credited him with even a greater intelligence than the horse possessed." [1]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ultra (comics)
- Comment: It would be nice if this could be run on Anzac Day (25 April)
Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC).
There are some instances of close paraphrasing, not counting the quotes, which I think can be fixed. I'm referring to such things like "sailed for South Africa again", "obtained a commission as a lieutenant in the", "a numerically superior Boer force", "Elliott replied that the lives of his men were more", "was appointed to command the 15th Brigade", and "three of the four battalion commanders allotted to". There are a few others, but I think you get the idea and the copyvio detector can be used. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I created the website back in 1999, and wrote the generals pages in 2001. The whole article was originally a copy of my web page in 2007. It was one of many pages plagiarised by Wikipedia. I was brought in to correct errors in "my" Wikipedia articles. My web pages are licensed under creative commons, so I waived the copyvio. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I will pass this DYK soon because that issue was addressed since the website is licensed under the Creative Commons. However, I'm not sure why mostly everything else was correctly paraphrased and only a few examples were not... I also don't appreciate the edit summary from the nominator - "Move along. Nothing to see here." The image is free use and the QPQ was completed. My only issue is that the exact hook isn't in the article. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- The reason is that I recently expanded the article fivefold. It is unusual for the exact hook to be in the article due to the restrictions on hooks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- SL93, the facts presented in the hook must all be present in the article, and all supported with appropriate inline citations. However, the exact words used are not required, word-for-word, in a single sentence in the article. Where wordings differ, it is reasonable and appropriate for you as the reviewer to question whether the meaning has changed, but so long as you are satisfied that the hook is a fair and accurate reflection of the sources and article content, you can give an approval. EdChem (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- The part in the article would be "Throughout the war, he was accompanied by a black charger, called "Darkie",[35] who (with subtle encouragement) would spot the smallest irregularities in the men. Years later, his men were still convinced that it was the horse who had noticed the errors their commander had berated them for.[33]". I can imagine a reader clicking on the article from the main page and thinking that the hook has an error because it doesn't mention anything like "unshaven" or "incorrectly dressed".I also don't see why it would be difficult to include that part somewhere within that paragraph. SL93 (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is included, with appropriate ref, in the caption of the photo of the horse "Elliott's horse Darkie. The men of the 15th Brigade credited this charger with the ability to notice and point out to Elliott any man who had not shaved or was not dressed properly. The charger was a well trained stock horse and the slightest pressure on his shoulder would cause him to stop.[48]" JennyOz (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- The part in the article would be "Throughout the war, he was accompanied by a black charger, called "Darkie",[35] who (with subtle encouragement) would spot the smallest irregularities in the men. Years later, his men were still convinced that it was the horse who had noticed the errors their commander had berated them for.[33]". I can imagine a reader clicking on the article from the main page and thinking that the hook has an error because it doesn't mention anything like "unshaven" or "incorrectly dressed".I also don't see why it would be difficult to include that part somewhere within that paragraph. SL93 (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- SL93, the facts presented in the hook must all be present in the article, and all supported with appropriate inline citations. However, the exact words used are not required, word-for-word, in a single sentence in the article. Where wordings differ, it is reasonable and appropriate for you as the reviewer to question whether the meaning has changed, but so long as you are satisfied that the hook is a fair and accurate reflection of the sources and article content, you can give an approval. EdChem (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I will pass this...even though I think the hook being only in the image caption is bizarre, but it technically is in the article...and to be blunt, the earlier edit summary is not something to say to anyone - especially if they are the one that it is reviewing your article. SL93 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies for any offence caused. It was not intentional. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine. If nothing bad was meant by it, I guess I don't know what was meant by it. Sometimes when I read what I think are insults, I get upset because I was blocked once for an admin baiting me (which is why I was unblocked). I had to even request a user name change from Joe Chill to SL93 because apparently some editors (and admins) thought that the username was joke worthy. SL93 (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)