Talk:Reg Pollard (general)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 09:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will post a review shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, this is a fine piece of work, IMO, which easily meets the GA criteria in my opinion. I have a few minor comments to help take it towards A-class (if you are interested in going down that path): AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• There are no dabs (no action required)
• The images appear appropriately licenced to me, although the OTRS ticket might need to be checked for a higher assessment

• I think the article should have the legs for ACR/FAC so might seek Nikki's opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• there are a couple of duplicate links, but they seem appropriate in the context used (no action required)
• there appear to be a couple of deadlinks, which should probably be investigated (just the AWM ones): [1]

• Well trust the AWM to change their URLs yet again -- I think they do it every year to keep us on our toes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• the article is well referenced and uses a variety of sources that appear to satisfy the requirements at WP:RS, and represent the main body of work on the subject (no action required);
• in the infobox the dates for the subject's years of service "1925-63" probably should be "1921-63”. A cadet at RMC is a serving member of the Australian Army (happy to discuss if you disagree; this is, of course, just based on personal knowledge);

• No, quite right -- just double-checking, I used 1921 as the the start date of service for his classmate Scherger. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• in the Notes, I suggest adding the author's surnames to the short citations for the Army Quarterly citations, as I think that will make it easier for a reader to find, for instance "The Army Quarterly, p. 161" --> "Dawnay & Headlam, The Army Quarterly, p. 161" (suggestion only);

• That was an oversight, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• in the References, only some of the publishers appear to be linked, is there a reason for this? Some, like Allen & Unwin, also have pages;

• I generally link the the 'linkable' ones, so tks for reminding me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• if possible, "File:Reg Pollard 1942 023756" should face into the article (suggestion only);

• I prefer that too but I think that might force the next image down too much (on some screens at least). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder if it could be rotated? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I guess it could but I think we're probably meant to leave pictures facing the way their photographers intended... ;-) OTOH if there is any issue with the current infobox image then I'd probably use the 1942 image there and employ a different shot (facing 'inwards') from the AWM for the WWII section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest merging the first and second sentences of the lead;

• I'm guessing that's so we get his notability established in the one sentence before launching into the brief summary of his life? I think that's probably fair enough -- there are a few ways one could do it, see how it reads now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder if it could be mentioned earlier in the narrative that he was a Regular Army soldier. Most of his early postings were to CMF battalions, which could give the impression that he was a part-timer;

• I tend to agree but I don't think the main sources say so explicitly -- at the risk of displaying my ignorance, did reserve officers go through Duntroon though? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not at that time, no. They do now, though, albeit as part of different classes/courses (and for a much shorter time). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• " 25th Brigade, an Australian unit raised in England to help combat a possible invasion by Nazi Germany" --> "an Australian infantry formation raised in England from excess personnel to help combat a possible invasion by Nazi Germany" (a brigade is a formation, not a unit, technically and the 25th was raised mainly from excess logistics personnel);

• Tks, tweaked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "2nd District Base" --> should this be "2nd Military District Base"?

• The List just says "2DB", which Hawkeye kindly translated as "2nd District Base", so if that's indeed the Second Military District then I'm more than happy to use the link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry I can't be certain. I think it is the same entity, but I am not completely sure, so probably best just to leave it as is. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• it might be worth explaining why he joined the 2nd AIF --> due to the restrictions that the Defence Act placed on CMF and Regular soldiers serving overseas for combat purposes;

• I don't think the sources say that explicitly for him -- I guess I could add a separate sentence explaining that technicality and not be accused of synthesis... WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• not really necessary for this level, but I think it would help add context for the lay reader if you take it to A class or FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, I'll try and do that before going for ACR/FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Rupert, I'm actually having trouble finding a reliable source that makes explicit that the permanent force, as well as the militia (which is always mentioned), were prevented from serving overseas -- do you have one handy? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• G'day, Ian, I believe that Mark Johnston's The Australian Army in World War II, by Osprey Publishing mentions this on page 5. I used the book for the note that appears in the 53rd Battalion (Australia) article. The full citation is: Johnston, Mark (2007). The Australian Army in World War II. Elite 153. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84603-123-6. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Fantastic -- tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• "also resulted in the disbandment of the citizens' brigades and many other militia units" --> Pentropic also caused the issue of creating an Army with two different establishments, as two of the four regular battalions were maintained on the restricted establishment due to the deployment to Malaysia (as did the Pacific Islands Regiment). It also limited the Army's interoperability with its Allies. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Given we have an article for the pentropic organisation I thought going into detail re. different establishments might be a bit much, likewise interoperability as it was conceived as aiding interoperability with the Yanks before they were rude enough to drop it... ;-) WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, probably a fair call. It also destroyed the identity of many of the regional CMF infantry battalions and produced the five-company infantry battalion, which would have been a nightmare to command in the field, particularly in dense scrub. I can't even conceive how they would tie themselves in together in defence, let alone manoeuvre. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Tks for this thorough review, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail: