Talk:Maurice Wilder-Neligan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infoxbox;
  • Split the lead into two to improve readability
  • 1910–11 -> 1910–1911, per MOS:DATERANGE
  • 1914–21 -> 1914–1921, per MOS:DATERANGE
    •  Done
• Section 1;
  • His older "elder" brother
  • He "was" enlisted
    •  Done
  • leaving his wife and child in London and going to Sydney, Australia; any specific reason for this?
    • None of the sources say.
• Section 2.1;
  • Inconsistent mentioning of subject; "Maurice attended ...." "Neligan enlisted in the ....", Use the last of the subject to mention, per MOS:LASTNAME
    • I've done this to avoid confusion because I've just mentioned his brother
  • Link HMS Rattlesnake, if available, else make it a red link.
    •  Done
  • The success of the raid was ensured by his meticulous planning; I don't feel that this complies with the neutral point of view. Please reword.
    • Attributed it in-line to his biographer.
• Section 2.2;
  • Wilder-Neligan's first fight with his new command was the Battle of Polygon Wood; the phrase "with his new command" sounds vague, please reword it.
    •  Done
  • in a determined and imaginative way, achieving outstanding results; check for NPOV
    • reworded.
  • for a "the" third time
    •  Done
  • A.J. Hill -> A. J. Hill; per MOS:INITIALS
    •  Done
  • awarded a Bar to his Distinguished Service Order; de-capitalize B in Bar
    •  Done
  • Wilder-Neligan moved ....; maintain consistency per MOS:LASTNAME, also check for other cases
    • his name changes during the article, from Neligan, to Wilder, then Wilder-Neligan.
  • He was an outstanding organiser, possibly the best in the AIF; reconsider the use of "outstanding" "best"
    • reworded.
• Section 3;
  • Wilder-Neligan's commission in the AIF was terminated; being such an exemplary and decorated officer, what was the reason for this termination?
    • It was standard on return to Australia, as the AIF was raised only for overseas service. I've reworded it.
  • Link Field Marshal
    •  Done
• 63.6% confidence, violation possible. Please check this.
  • I've tweaked a bit of the close paraphrasing in the prose, but most of the highlighted bits are quotes from Hill or simple facts like the name of the school he attended or the name of his wife etc.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Krishna! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

G'day Krishna, anything else I need to do here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

G'day Krishna. I've gone ahead and expanded this article considerably since you reviewed it. Hopefully you will still complete your review? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: G'work. I'll definitely review the article, but not at the moment. I shall complete the review by the end of this week. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Did you expand the article as sections or was it expanded as a whole? I mean if the content is added at end of the original one, it'll be easier for to review those. Else no issues, I'll review it once again. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I expanded the lot, including the lead. Sorry for moving the goalposts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Review after expansion

• Lead and infobox;
  • A sergeant in the 9th Battalion by the time of the Gallipoli landings of April 1915, he was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for gallantry, and was quickly commissioned, reaching the rank of temporary captain before the end of the Gallipoli campaign; This entire sentence appears to be too long and reads a bit vague to me. Better split it into two or more sentences to improve the flow.
    •  Done
  • substantive captain; is this a rank? or are you trying to describe his position by the adjective "substantive"?
    • substantive rather than temporary or acting, I've reworded it, see what you think?
  • a master of tactics, a consummate organiser; check for NPOV
    • I believe these are supported by the body, but I've modified them a bit.
• Section 1;
  • where he formed a close connection to the publican's family; why is this important? Did this help him at a later stage?
    • it is mentioned in his Australian Dictionary of Biography entry, but I can't see what is meant to imply. Do you think it needs to be removed?
• Section 2;
  • Maintain consistency while using comma (,) after a date, Examples; "On 18 February 1905 he was married to a divorcee" "On 1 January 1915, Wilder was promoted to sergeant" etc.
    • I think I got all of these.
• Section 2.1;
  • Use unbreakable space for time, per MOS:TIME. Ex: 4:30 am, 9:00 am etc.
    •  Done

To be continued ... Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Section 2.2.1;
  • In November he was again mentioned in despatches; do you have the information on "for which he was mentioned", I mean second, third etc.
    • The sources vary, some give an explanation for the mention, some don't.
  • A comma (,) after "The Maze"
    •  Done

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Section 2.2.2;
  • into two specially trained "storm" companies and two companies responsible for carrying forward ammunition and equipment, and to conduct "mopping-up" of pockets of resistance. During the move to the start line, the two carrying and "mopping-up" companies of the battalion were caught in a heavy and persistent German barrage, suffered significant casualties and became disorganised; I feel a lot of confusion due to the repetitive use of "and", and am unable to get an idea of the division of troops. Please break down the sentence into two or more.
    • Done, hopefully it is clearer now.
  • was intermingled with the first wave "of"/"by" 11th Battalion
    • have tweaked this, see what you think?
  • Wilder-Neligan had specially procured copies of the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail newspapers distributed for his men to read; What is the context to present this sentence here? Did that help in planning further moves? If so, please mention that clearly, otherwise I feel the sentence as completely out of the line.
    • Per the following sentence about how he was described in the newspaper, it is intended to illustrate his eccentricity, for which he was notable.
  • I don't feel that the word "innovative" complies with the NPOV. May be you could give "new" a try.
    • replaced with unconventional.
  • strength of 517 all ranks; reads vague
    • replaced with men
• Section 3; all good.
• 52.5% confidence, violation possible. Please check this and rectify.
  • The tool is being a bit obtuse here, IMHO. These are almost all quotations, which by their nature are verbatim, or names of people, schools, awards etc that need to remain as they are.

Good work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over again, Krishna, particularly as I moved the goalposts part-way through. There are quite a few points you've made in this and the earlier run-through that I've responded to, but I'm not sure if you are happy with them. Could you clarify? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Please elaborate, I couldn't get your intention. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

G'day Krishna. Just a couple of things I wanted to make sure you are ok with:

• do you think the "close connection to the publican's family" needs to be deleted?
  • Yes, please remove this, when it has nothing to do with the flow. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• the reason for the inclusion of the newspaper distribution story
• my response to the Earwig results
• image licensing

If you're happy with those three things, then I think I've covered off on all your points. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I am happy with others. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I think we're good to go, Krishna. Thanks again for the review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)