Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Norman Frederick Hastings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Norman Frederick Hastings

Nominator(s): PunkyNZ

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the Norman Frederick Hastings article is new, and provides a comprehensive review of his military career compiled from the information available in his service file. The article has also been entered in the WikiProject Military history Contest, so assessment as a B-Class or A-Class article is required.

Support Comments: hello, PunkyNZ, I'm not sure if you have been involved in the Milhist A-class Review process before. If not, welcome. Please be aware that the process aims to prepare articles for FAC, so the A-class criteria are quite high. As such, it is usually recommended (but not required) that articles go through Milhist B-class and then GAN before coming to ACR. In its current form, I don't think that the article meets A-class criteria (it would probably be C class IMO), however, with a bit a of work it might be possible to bring it up to scratch as I can see that there is some quite good content to work from. As such, I have the following suggestions on how this article could be brought up to A-class:

• the first sentence in the lead is technically not a sentence and probably needs a rewrite;
• be careful of overlink, for instance in the lead you link "major" twice, which is not required. I recommend installing this script: User:Ucucha/duplinks;
• I suggest not refering to the subject of the article as "Captain Hastings" and "Major Hastings" etc. This is confusing for non experts who may think they are different people. I suggest just simplying using his full name on first instance and then just "Hastings" afterwards. Additionally, where you are introducing new people, I think it is house style on Wikipedia to use their full name. For instance, "...Major Damant" should include Damant's full name if know. Likewise with De Wet;
• the section headers should be tweaked, e.g. "Early Life" should be "Early life" per WP:Section caps;
• the Early life section should be expanded to include more details about schooling, siblings, etc. if known;
• ranks should only be capitalised where used as a title per WP:MILTERMS, for instance "...when he served as a Private for two and half years" should be "...when he served as a private for two and a half years";
• inconsistent terminology: "World War I" and "First World War" --> either is fine, but consistency is the key;
• some sort of punctuation is required here: "...2nd Mounted Rifles Regiment a volunteer unit in Wellington from 1 June 1909 in the rank of Acting Lieutenant." (after "Regiment");
• "He tried unsucessfully to join the permanent staff of the New Zealand Defence Force as an adjutant or instructor" --> did the "New Zealand Defence Force" actually exist under this name at that time? If not, it would be best to use the correct contemporary name;
• for A class (and also in fact B class), this needs to be referenced: "During this period Hastings settled in Petone where he commenced working for the New Zealand Railways Department as an engineering fitter, and with his wife raised two children; Francis Norman and Marjory.";
• same as above for this: "The unit formed part of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade commanded by Brigadier-General Andrew Hamilton Russell, and departed New Zealand onboard the troopship Tahiti on 15 October 1914. This vessel was one of twelve troop ships of the main body of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force escorted in convoy by Allied warships, which stopped at Hobart, Albany and Colombo before arriving at the Suez Canal on 1 December 1914. The New Zealand Expeditionary Force established a training camp at Zeitoun, with the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade remaining behind as the New Zealand Infantry Brigade partcipated in British operations against the Ottomans in the Suez Canal area in February 1915 and departed for the invasion of the Gallipoli Pensinular in late April 1915.";<
• this also needs to be referenced: "The ANZACs subsequently established a new outpost closer to the existing line and this was called No.3 Outpost, with the position now held by the enemy referred to as the Old No.3 Outpost."
• so does this: "His evacuation was significantly delayed by the terrain and congested nature of the approaches to the heights, and the dangers encounted by his stretcher bearers, but he was successfully admitted to the casualty clearing station down on the Beach.";
• in the End Notes, where you have cited books, if possible please add page numbers. For instance, Note # 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11;
• the web citations should have details such as publisher, author and access date information where available. They could be formatted using {{cite web}}, but that is not mandatory;
• I think that you need to be careful using primary sources such as service records. While I think it is ok for some details, if overused it might be an issue per WP:PRIMARY. As such, where possible, I think you should replace the references to Hastings' service record with secondary sources;
• If you are able to work through these points (particularly the referencing points above) and expansion of the Early life section, I would be more than happy to take another look at the article. Please also feel free to ask any questions about the ACR process that you might have. BTW, good work so far on the article and good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• From looking over the article again, I have a few more observations:
  • is anything listed in the sources about the actions that Hastings was involved in during the Boer War? For example where he was wounded? If not, its not a major drama, but if it is mentioned in the sources, it should probably be added to the article;
  • in the notes: "14 years old on enlistment in the British Army so is obviously incorrect". I'm not sure about the wording "obviously" here. That seems like a judgement call. I'd suggest saying "so is unlikely". As you will see from reading James Martin (Australian soldier), there have been examples of 14 year olds enlisting;
  • what is the reasoning behind having the Brewer source in its own subsection of the End Notes? I think that in order to make it consistent with the style that you are using predominately throughout the article, that there is no need to repeat it, given that you have the details already in the inline citations. Having said that, there are other ways that the citations could be presented. For instance, WP:CITESHORT is another option, that you might consider, although at the end of the day, the only requirement at A-class is that your citation style is consistent throughout the article;
  • at A-class and beyond, it is generally recommended to keep the entries in the See also section to a minimum. Given that some of the links that are currently there are in fact external links, it might make sense either to move them to an External links section (if they are wholely relevant to the subject), or just remove them completely if they are only vaguely relevant;
  • Anyway, once these issues are sorted, that is probably it from me. Dank, would you mind having a look at the prose after that to see if it needs any further copy editing? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure ... Punky, leave a message on my talk page please when you've worked on Rupert's suggestions, you've read the text carefully to make sure it says what you want it to say, and you're ready for me to have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

• Welcome from me too ... we don't have a lot of Kiwis active in our wikiproject, so I hope you'll stick around. I copyedited the lead (although the lead is going to need a bit more before we're done, since it should summarize the main points of the article). I made a few judgment calls, so check it out and be sure to ask about anything that doesn't make sense. The article isn't ready to pass A-class yet, but it's early days. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I finished up. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:Thanks team. I'm new to this. I'd certainly be happy if someone could assess this article for B-Class in the first instance, as I work towards A-Class. I'm working to fix the referencing issues, but unfortunately I am struggling to source information covering Hastings' early life. Would this shortfall preclude it from becoming A-Class? Thanks for your assistance so far. PunkyNZ talk

G'day, the article is really coming along. Good work. I've just noticed something that I missed before, though. In the lead you say "was one of only 14 members of the New Zealand Army to receive the French Legion of Honor decoration during the War". This should also be mentioned somewhere in the body of the text with a reference. I'd suggest adding it to the Commemoration section. Regarding the lack of information covering early life, I don't think that that would preclude a successful A-class review, but only if that sort of information is definately not known or recorded in any reliable sources. I will defer to the opinions of other editors on the project in regards to this, though, as I don't write a lot of biographies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that in. I've done some copy editing today. Could you please take a look at my edits and make sure I haven't changed your intended meaning? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've done as much as I can to help out. PunkyNZ, please check you are happy with my changes. I have struck the comments/suggestions that I believe have been dealt with. I left a couple because I think they need clarification. They mainly relate to coverage. If you are confident, though, that you have searched all sources for this information and that it doesn't exist, I'd be happy to accept that coverage has been met. Please let me know what you think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert, its looking good now. This is the most I can find on Hastings unfortunately. I'll continue to add other pages in the same form. Ubique PunkyNZ (talk)

No worries, sometimes it is like that. We can only write about what's recorded. I have asked Dan to take a run through the article now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added my support above for promotion of this article to A-class as my concerns have been addressed and I believe it meets the criteria. Good work. I look forward to seeing more of your articles and I hope that you will get involved in Milhist's ACR program as a reviewer too. We are experiencing a bit of a shortage, so if you are keen please have a go. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Good stuff. Minor thoughts, mostly copyediting suggestions, below.
• "history of military service began in the 1890s" - could be simplified to "and his military service began..."
• "Despite his New Zealand roots Hastings served with British troops for the duration of the Second Anglo-Boer War in South Africa." - because the article hasn't yet said that he went to South Africa at all, this read slightly oddly. If you reversed it - e.g. "Hastings took part in the Second Anglo-Boer War in South Africa, serving with British troops despite his New Zealand roots." it might read more easily.
• "Holding the rank of conductor" - the average reader probably won't know what this rank equates to.
• "He later successfully passed a promotion examination" - could just be "He later passed a promotion examination"
• "After this, in 1911..." - "After this" seemed superfluous, given the dates.
• "and was attested on 13 August 1914" - worth linking (or explaining) to show what attested means?
• "With the initial landings at Gallipoli having been strongly resisted, reinforcements were required. " how about "The Gallipoli landings were strongly resisted by Ottoman forces, and reinforcements were required." or a variant of that?
• " His evacuation was significantly delayed by the terrain and congested nature of the approaches to the heights" - could just have "and congested approaches to the heights"
• "What happened to the wounded Hastings after he was delivered to the beach is unclear." I'd reverse this, e.g. "It is unclear what happened to the wounded Hastings..."
• End Notes - if you wanted, you could break out end note 3 as a footnote, leaving the others as references; see Henry VIII of England for how this can be done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good points, Hchc2009. I've implemented all those changes except the last, as I want to make sure that the nominator is okay with that before changing their style. PunkyNZ, when you get a chance, could please review Hchc2009's last comment and decide how you wish to proceed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers! Style with footnotes etc. is always individual to an article, PunkyNZ, so please treat it only a possible suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks team, some great improvements there. Thankyou very much for your help. I have introduced the footnote section and agree that this looks better. I managed to pop in and get a photo of the New Zealand Railways WWI roll of honour list and will add this to the article. I'm going to try to get a photo of the flagpole memorial this weekend also. PunkyNZ talk

• CommentsSupport
  • One dab link [1]:
    • Captain
  • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a few errors with reference consolidation:
    • WMRHistory3 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • ServiceFile1 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Haigh (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • McDonald (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation [4] (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate for article (no action required).
  • You might consider putting the subject's date of birth and death in parenthesis after his post noms in the lead per similar articles. Consider the fol example: "Major General Stuart Clarence Graham AO, DSO, OBE, MC (23 October 1920 – 20 July 1996) was a senior officer in the Australian Army..." (completly unrelated example of course)
  • Is this accurate: "Working with General Bruce Hamilton's 21st Brigade..."? A brigade is unlikely to have been commanded by a full General AFAIK. According to Pakenham 1979, p. 423 at that time he commanded 21st Brigade Bruce Hamilton was a Major General (although he was of course later promoted to General).
  • I also think you might consider using the short citation method per WP:CITESHORT instead of using long citations like you do (suggestion only). Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • G'day, I haven't seen PunkyNZ around for a while, so I've implemented most of these changes, except the CITESHORT suggestion. As it is a style thing, I think it best left up to the primary contributor. In relation to the Hamilton comment, the source used does say "General", but I think it safe to assume that they were writing after he was promoted and therefore using a "highest rank achieved" presentation style. IMO, Pakenham is pretty definitive on most counts in relation to the Boer War, so I'd be confident that he is right. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed - thanks for that AR. All my comments above have been resolved (except the cites which I'm not going to insist on of cse). Happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

'Comment one file is is missing a US copyright tag. One file on commons is missing a source country tag. both are required, unfortunately I can't give you the links because I'm on a mobile device. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I've taken a look at this on the nominator's behalf. I believe that I've fixed one of these, but I'm not sure of the other (File:Major Norman Frederick Hastings.jpg). {{PD-NZ}} doesn't seem appropriate because the clause "because its author died more than 50 years ago" wouldn't seem appropriate given that on the image description page, the author is listed as "unknown". Unless I missed one, no other tags seem relevant either. Thoughts? Can it be saved, or does it need to go? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Major Norman Frederick Hastings.jpg is OK because it's on the 'pedia, not on Commons. I will review the situation in the morning. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. 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.