Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Newland

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Closed as Promoted. Cam (Chat) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Newland

edit

I am requesting this article be reviewed for A-Class as I have significantly expanded it over the last few weeks and believe it now meets the criteria. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well-written and organized article on the subject. I believe it meets the A-class criteria. One concern, however, is that the two websites cited don't appear to meet the criteria as reliable sources. I'm not sure about Digger History as a reliable source, but I might be wrong (see comments below). Cla68 (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand; both websites used as sources are both reliable. Both have themselves listed references and, in several cases, are primary sources. I have also had two articles pass FAC with these sources used and no concerns have ever been raised about their reliability before. May I ask how you believe these to be unreliable? Thanks for the support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Digger History is used as a reference by about seven books, according to this [1] and it states that its information on Newland comes from the Australian War Memorial (AWM). I couldn't find further information on its sources. Seven books might be enough to qualify it as a RS, but I'm not sure. You could probably cite the AWM, which is a reliable source, and link to Digger as the source. Brightoncemetery does list its sources at the bottom, and they appear to be reliable, so I withdraw that objection and apologize for my error. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! You ment the sources in the "External links" section! I thought you were refering to the sources used in citations. Digger History and Brightoncemetery are probably not the most reliable of sources, but I do believe they are reliable enough to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines to be listed as an external link. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The only problem I have is that I would recommend explaining his commission. Isn't is rather unusual for NCOs to be commissioned? – Joe Nutter 16:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not during the First World War; it was actually quite common then as there were such a lack of officers due to casualties. Thanks and cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? I did not know that. OK, looks good then. Good luck at FAC. – Joe Nutter 03:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - some fairly minor points that I hope can be addressed:
    • "On 25 April 1915, the 3rd Australian Brigade—of which the 12th Battalion was part—was designated as the covering force for the ANZAC landing, and as such was the first unit ashore at approximately 04:30 upon the commencement of the Gallipoli Campaign." I think this sentence is a bit arse-about, Gallipoli should be mentioned up front. How about something like "At the commencement of the Gallipoli Campaign, the 3rd Australian Brigade—of which the 12th Battalion was part—was designated as the covering force for the ANZAC landing, and as such was the first unit ashore on 25 April 1915, at approximately 04:30."
    • "During this time, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 22 May,[2] before returning to the 12th Battalion four days later following a full recovery.[7]" Checking the source at [7], I don't see where it mentioned or necessarily implied a "full recovery", so prefer to see that eliminated that and leave it as "returning to the 12th Battalion four days later."
    • "Involved in minor operations during this time, the battalion transferred to the Somme in July,[2] where it participated in the Battle of Pozières; the 12th Battalion's first major French action." Think you need a comma after "Pozières" rather than a semi-colon. Alternatively you could leave the semi-colon and say "it was the 12th Battalion's first major French action."
      • I think either could have applied, but I have changed it to the comma. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The full citation for Newland's Victoria Cross appeared in a supplement to the London Gazette on 8 June 1917, it read:" Opposite to above, "it read" needs a semi-colon rather than a comma. Alternatively, keep the comma and make it "reading".
    • This one is purely a thought but the 12th Battalion link, for one, notes he was called "Jim" and, while a diminutive rather than a nickname, it could be included in the opening line of the intro and in the infobox as "James Ernest (Jim) Newland" or some such.
      • I was going to add that in when I saw it, but no other source I have seen mentions him as "Jim" so I decided not to at the time, and am a little reluctant to do so now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, very high standard. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, Ian. I think I have addressed all of the issues above, if not I can have another look. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's all fine - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/James_Newland&oldid=1138360449"