Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Eric Gascoigne Robinson

Eric Gascoigne Robinson edit

A Royal Navy admiral, First World War hero and Victoria Cross holder. I've recently greatly expanded, organised and developed this article and would be interested to know where to go from here with it. --Jackyd101 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin edit

Quite good; a number of points to work on, though:

Citation! The article is rather undercited, at the moment; much of the narrative can't readily be tied to any particular source.
The awards should either be worked into a normal prose paragraph or moved to the infobox. I would suggest the former.
The references need to be formatted properly, and should include everything cited in the article. I would also suggest moving the Victoria Cross Reference bit into the list.
The lead section can probably stand to be expanded to two paragraphs, to give a somewhat more detailed summary of the article.
Are there any other images that could be used here? A marked-up map of Gallipoli may be useful.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've followed the advice above, the only exception being with the references, as I don't have all of them. Do you have any further comments?--Jackyd101 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated edit

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan edit

"underfire" in the lead para, should this be "under fire" or is "underfire" ana ccepted term?
a "string of daring operations" sounds POV and biased without a cite
"forceful and diligent officer who conducted himself with meritorious service " likewise
The map I'm not happy with, I can't identify what part of Turkey I'm looking at there, and at the same time th exact area of Robinson's operationg is unclear - the map is at the wrong scale. I would add a single "magnifying glass" map simultaneously showing several zoon levels of which portion of turkey we are looking at and also a closeup of the exact area of operation, or else two or more separate maps.
I'd like to see more cites. I know there is not a lot of information in the public domain on relatively obscure figures but all of the statements in the article must be based on something read somewhere,a nd should be able to be cited

Generally a fine article though on a person (and indeed series of events) i previously knew nothing about. Well done - PocklingtonDan 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:OK, I've tried to sort this out, but I have a few questions here. 1) I'm sure that its not recommended to cite things in the introduction, since the remainder of the article should bear out statements made there. I've tried to cite the things you highlighted but I didn't want to overload the section. 2)The map was something I pulled off Wikimedia Commons as it seemed the best for this purpose. I don't have the first idea how to create a map such as you described, did you have a particular one in mind when you suggested it? I tried to label it a bit better though. 3) I don't see any major controversies which are uncited, if you see some outside the introduction, please let me know. The main problem here is that the article is based largely on a single secondary and some small primary sources due to a paucity of information. However, there isn't a lot I can do about that. Thankyou for your review.--Jackyd101 01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]