Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Treloar (museum administrator)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [1].

John Treloar (museum administrator)

edit

John Treloar (museum administrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though John Treloar seems to have never fired a shot in anger, he was one of the most important figures in Australia's military history. He headed the military's record-keeping units during both world wars, was the director of the Australian War Memorial for most of the period between 1920 and his death in 1950 and moonlighted as the secretary of a government department during the first years of World War II. Throughout it all, he was a workaholic and literally lived next to his office in the years before his early death.

I've been working on this article for about two years, and think that it now meets the FA criteria. The article passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review in March and has since been improved. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. Nick, please check the changes since the A-class review for typos. I got everything down to Establishing the War Memorial, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thanks for your fixes, I've made a few more Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Excellent to see such a good article about a museum figure. One query that struck me; the Department of Information is redlinked in the lead, and while its role and government status is outlined in the World War II section, it might be worth a slight qualifier in the lead ('...the Australian government's Department of Information' for instance) just for clarity. IxK85 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comment - I've just made this change. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether "VX39804" is italicized or not
    • Fixed
  • FN 33, 66: formatting
    • Done; both now use the automatically generated citations the National Library of Australia recommends
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for magazines/journals
    • Done (all now included)
  • Bibliography for journal articles should include pages
    • Doing Done for all the paper-based journals (Condé 2007 is online only)
  • Be consistent in whether or not Australian locations include states. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a very readable article, but would like a bit more clarity about the renaming from Museum to Memorial; when did the change take place? Was it in December 1927 when the staff were made permanent? And which government department was responsible for the organisation after that change? IxK85 (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point - it assumed its current name in 1925. The Memorial has always been for all intents and purposes an independent organisation overseen by its own board, and doesn't directly come under any department. It's been responsible to various ministers over time, but I don't think that this is really relevant as they've almost never intervened in its management and don't seem to have affected Treloar at all. I've just added details on the date the Memorial changed name and its management structure in Treloar's time to the article. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I've gone through the changes to this article since I supported it at its MilHist A-Class Review, and after making a couple of very minor tweaks to prose I see no reason not to support it here; well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Nazi Review:

  • Lead
  • Paragraph 2, sentence 7: "He attempted to intervene in the management of the AWM during his absence, however, to the increasing frustration of its acting director." However should only begin or end a sentence; it should never be used in the middle of one.
    • Thanks for this review; I just saw it, after making my changes. On this point: see Chicago 5.207. - Dank (push to talk)
      • That's perfectly common Australian usage, and (from memory) is recommended by the Australian style manual. The Chicago Style Manual is not normally used by Australians; we use Australian and British style guides. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but I've been copyediting per Chicago for a long time, and seldom get complaints from non-Americans ... and it's the only style guide, American or otherwise, that I've found to even approach universality ... mostly because that's what they've aimed for, they've been highly influential in Canada for over 100 years. So ... please do let me know (as you've done below) if anything I say doesn't sound right, so that over time, we can figure out which guidance works. - Dank (push to talk) 11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh and ... right, most of the time, I don't specifically mention Chicago unless it's AmEng or CanEng ... but this copyeditor is Canadian and seems to be trying to follow Canadian usage rather than Australian, so the comments were more directed at him. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm just going to chime in here to agree with Nick. Use of "however" mid-sentence is not uncommon in British English and so I presume it would have similar use among the descendants of British convicts. ;) That's not to say that it's correct, though—I copy-edit by my own comprehension of English rather than by guides, and I certainly don't know every rule. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • World War I
  • Paragraph 4, sentence 2: "At this time the Section comprised himself and four enlisted soldiers, and was located in London." Reflexive pronouns should only be used when the object of a sentence is the same as its subject, or to emphasize the subject of the sentence. This does neither.
Comma removed Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I had meant. The reflexive pronoun is himself. For the sentence to be correct, you must change it to him or say "At this time the Section comprised Treloar himself...". Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed 'himself' as the previous sentence already says that Treloar was the commander of the unit. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 6, sentence 4: "While Bean was impressed by Treloar's achievements, he believed that the young man pushed himself too hard and was at risk of a breakdown." First Treloar pushed himself too hard, and then Bean believed it. Hence, the past perfect tense of "pushed" should be used: "had pushed".
  • Establishing the War Memorial
  • Paragraph 5, sentence 1: "Treloar typically worked for six days each week, and normally stayed until late at night." The action is habitual and in the past; therefore, the verbs should be conditional: "Treloar would typically work..."
  • Sentence 3: "Treloar also placed an emphasis on safeguarding the collection, and in 1933 personally investigated the theft of the German cruiser Emden's bell from the Memorial in Sydney when the New South Wales Police gave up; with his assistance it was recovered later that year." This is a rather long sentence, and give up is rather informal. In addition, first the police abandoned the search, and then Treloar began his investigation. The past perfect tense should be used: "...when the New South Wales Police had given up..."
  • World War II
  • Paragraph 1, sentence 1: "Shortly before the outbreak of World War II Treloar wrote to the members of the AWM's board to propose that if another major war occurred the Memorial should suspend most of its activities and reorient its focus to become a memorial to all the wars in which Australia had taken part, rather than just World War I." This is a clear run-on sentence. It should be split.
  • Sentence 3: "He further suggested that the Memorial building be used as a store and for government offices during the war and that its staff could establish a war records section similar to the AWRS." A comma should be used after war, and could is not necessary.
  • Paragraph 2, sentence 2: "In September 1939 he was appointed the inaugural secretary of the Department of Information (DOI) by his close friend Henry Gullett, who at the time was the Minister for Information." Add as after appointed. Also, the active voice may sound more natural: "In September 1939 his close friend Henry Gullet, who at the time was the Minister for Information, appointed him as the inaugural secretary of the Department of Information."
    • Disagree with 'as' (this reads awkwardly and doesn't add anything, and runs against the common usage for how Australian departmental secretary positions are described), but I've tweaked the sentence to the active voice Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 4: "Treloar ran the department in line with traditional Australian Public Service procedures, which included implementing tight internal controls over the department's procedures and information dissemination functions as well as taking steps to stop its work from being politicised." "Prevent its work's politicisation" avoids any unnecessary use of present participles or prepositions.
Will "prevent the politicisation of its work" be alright? Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The change to this sentence left it with similar wording to what you suggest. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 5: "He remained the departmental secretary after Gullett was moved to a different ministry in March 1940, but lost status when Keith Murdoch was appointed to the new position of Director-General of Information in June that year." Again, as is needed after remained. The necessary possessive pronoun "his" is missing before status, and of is required after June.
  • I disagree with those suggestions - they would add complexity to the sentence and make it read awkwardly. Adding 'his' as suggested also changes the meaning of the sentence (Treloar's status was reduced, not destroyed). Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 7: "Treloar was troubled by the use of the DOI's photographers to manufacture publicity photographs instead of taking images with historical value." There is a tense agreement issue between manufacture and taking.
  • Sentence 8: "Treloar regained full control of the DOI in December 1940 when Murdoch resigned, though the Department's photographers continued to mainly be tasked with taking publicity photos." To mainly be is a split infinitive and should not be used.
  • Paragraph 3, sentence 6: "General Thomas Blamey, the commander of the AIF, later redesignated the War Records Section the Military History and Information Section (MHIS) as he felt that the original name did not adequately describe the unit's role." Again, the past perfect tense of feel should be used, because General Blamey had felt that way before he renamed the War Records Section.
  • Sentence 7: "In contrast to the DOI's propaganda activities, the MHIS was focused on collecting records, images and items that would be useful to historians." As one part of the sentence contains its own commas, the first comma must be a semicolon.
The second half of the sentence contains its own comma in the list. When independent parts of the sentence have their own commas, a semicolon must be used to create a second level of divider. The first comma creates a comma splice. It should be a semicolon. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I agree with that - the sentence seems to read OK and I can't see how a semi-colon would help. What wording do you suggest? Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4, sentence 1 needs a comma or two.
  • Sentence 2: "While en-route to the Middle East he visited Malaya." The dash is not needed in en route.
  • Sentence 3: "Conditions in North Africa proved more challenging than those in World War I, however, as the combat was fast-moving and the Australian troops felt less motivation to collect artefacts than those of the First AIF." Again, however should not be in the middle of a sentence.
  • Sentence 6: "During Treloar's absence from the AWM its main building was opened in November 1941 without him having had any input into the design of its galleries." Him comes before a present participle, so the sentence should read his having had.
  • Paragraph 6, sentence 4 uses however in the middle of a sentence.
  • Sentence 5: "This concerned Bean, who wrote an unanswered letter to Treloar in July 1943 offering to help organise for more items to be collected." Organise should be replaced with arrange; otherwise the sentence must be rephrased "...offering to help organise the collection of more items." Offering should also be replaced with and offered.
    • I didn't like "organise" either. "offering" is fine; it modifies "letter". - Dank (push to talk)
      • changed to 'offering to help organise the collection of more items', 'and offered' is incorrect as this is what was in Bean's letter, and not subsequent communication. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up is not needed in paragraph 7, sentence 5.
  • Post-war
  • Paragraph 1, sentence 2: "At the time he believed he was suffering from bad health, but wanted to resume his work at the Memorial rather than enter hospital." Use the past perfect tense of believe.
  • Paragraph 2, sentence 1: "The main challenges for the Memorial in the post-war years were integrate the World War II collections with those from World War I and secure funding to expand its building." To is needed before integrate.
I concur. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4, sentence 1: "Treloar's work patterns took a toll on his health, and the deterioration in his performance after 1946 may have been the result of exhaustion." May have been is not correct. The past tense of may is might.
It is perfectly correct. The past tense of may is might. You would never say something like can have been, but always could have been. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in DC this weekend and don't have my books with me ... I'll see if I can find something for you when I get home. Off the top of my head, the problem is that "might" is the subjunctive as well as the past tense of "may", and I think most readers will hear it as subjuctive, which is not what I want. Thanks for your review btw. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall change it myself. If anyone dislikes it he may revert it. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back as I think that it was a bit awkward. I've also changed the statement that the police 'abandoned' their investigated back to 'broke off' as this wording as more dramatic than what the source says ('abandoned' makes it sound like the police considered the investigation a totally lost cause, when the reference says that they "gave up the hunt"). Thanks for your other changes though. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However awkward it may sound to you, it is correct. The past tense of may is might. The action happened in the past; therefore, might must be used. I do not perceive it as the subjunctive. Will some other people please share their opinions about may have been? Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back home now, and Garner's agrees with me, on p. 529. (Garner's is an American usage guide, the one most often mentioned by American copy editors, but it does its best to stay true to its origin: Fowler's.) Quoting an example of bad usage in a newspaper headline: "Plane Might ([better is] "May") Have Stalled Before Crashing" ... (Might erroneously suggests the stall didn't happen; the probability is that it did.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the sentence so there's no need for may/might, and this whole discussion is now useless. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
  • Paragraph 1, sentence 1: "Following his death Treloar was praised for the personal sacrifices he had made to establish the AWM as well as for the high quality of the Memorial." A comma is needed here.

This has been the review of a Grammar Nazi. Once all of these things are fixed, my vote will be Support! Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 03:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Media Review - Everything looks good, however all but one of the images have watermarks from the museum, they ought to be removed. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carcharoth (talk)

I have a book on the Australian Historical Mission (Gallipoli Revisited - In the Footsteps of Charles Bean and the Australian Historical Mission, Janda Gooding, 2009). The author is from the AWM, so I'm assuming it is a reliable source. Treloar wasn't on this mission, but there are some brief mentions of Treloar listed in the index and a biographical note. Though the biographical note says that Treloar enlisted 27 August 1914, rather than 16 August 1914. Not sure why those dates are different. Also in this note is the service dates in Gallipoli from 25 April 1915 to 4 September 1915, the latter being a more specific departure date (the Wikipedia article is silent on this). The other mentions in this book that might be of interest (i.e. not already covered in the current version of this article) are:

His Army file states that he enlisted in the AIF on 16 August 1914. What page number is the date he was evacuated Gallipoli on? Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That date is from the biographical note, note 24 to chapter 1, given in the chapter endnotes at the back of the book. This particular note is on page 224. The exact wording is "served on Gallipoli with 1st AIF Division Head Quarters 25 April to 4 September 1915". But Gooding doesn't say where she gets that information from (there are various biographical bits throughout the notes of people mentioned in the book, but no sources for these biographical bits). Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added. His official army file states that he was hospitalised on 29 August and evacuated to Egypt on 4 September. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look at that official file - you mean that imposing 137 page scan? Which of those pages did you find the hospitalisation dates on? There is some nice additional stuff there, but it is too primary to really use without interpretation by secondary sources (the latter being what you've done for what has been included). It was interesting to see the official issue stamps relating to the Victory Medal and other standard-issue medals from WWI. Hopefully some of those additional details will be teased out in any future biography of Treloar. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page 131. The page numbers seem to be dynamic though as more has been added to the online record over the period in which this article has been developed, so I've used the name of the relevant document within the file as the reference per the normal way primary sources are referenced by historians. As you note, the only use I'm made of the file have been to add extra detail on topics covered in secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) In the context of the work of the AWRS subsection in Cairo: "Henry Gullett [...] arrived in October 1917 to take charge of the subsection [...] Throughout the war the program of the subsection continued to be monitored by John Treloar, head of the AWRS in London" (p.128). Now, in the article, you say "The AWRS established field offices in France and Egypt, and reached a strength of about 600 soldiers and civilians in November 1918." That seems to cover the same material, but the Wikipedia article fails to explicitly say what role is played by John Treloar in various aspects of the AWRS, and fails to mention Gullett at this point. What you probably need to make explicit is that you are giving an indication here of the size of the operation that Treloar commanded, and you should probably also mention Gullett here for the first time, as Gullett was corresponding with Treloar from at least at this time.
  • (2) In the context of the Australian Historical Mission, an example is given of the co-ordinating work Treloar did, with the landing of a party on the Gallipoli peninsula "to collect relics and make a photographic survey [being] prompted by a cable Treloar sent from London to Cairo on 25 November 1918 advising Gullett of Bean's plans to visit Gallipoli" (p.133).
    • I'm not sure what the particular significance of this is; he presumably sent similar telegrams to his other subordinates to inform them of new activities as a routine part of his job. The article states that the AWRS continued to expand its collections after the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It made me wonder who the other people were that worked with Treloar - who headed the Paris subsection, for example? I'm sure if you dig around, you will find details of some of the other people working in the AWRS at the time (and whether or not they have articles here). And then you have the contributors (photographers and artists). I've mentioned Wilkins already, and George Washington Lambert (war artist) is another one. To justify including them here, you have to see if there is any connection with Treloar (the minimum connection is that Treloar would have been involved with arranging museum displays of the material they produced). What I'd also be looking for is some more context for this statement you make: "Bean, Gullet and Treloar were subsequently the key figures in the establishment of the AWM". What were the respective roles they played both in Europe at the time of the AWRS, and back in Australia when the AWM was being established? You also say that Bean and Treloar were "not close" (which is fair enough), but then later say that Gullet by 1939 was "Treloar's close friend" (which is why I wanted to be clearer roughly when they first met). Also, the names of those he reported to in his various roles, as well as his subordinates, would help give some context, though I realise this may not be possible. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't seen anything on this topic (despite lots of searches for references about Treloar), and I think that if this is available somewhere other than in official files it would probably be best suited to the article on the AWRS. Adding it here would cause the article to be overly weighted to a relatively small part of Treloar's life, and the text would resemble an organisation chart. The article already identifies the roles Bean and Gullett had during and after World War I (official war correspondent and official historian, and war correspondent, head of the AWRS' Cairo section and the initial director of the AWM respectively). I've added some extra details on Gullett's post-war roles. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Possibly you are right, though I was referring to his whole career, not just the WWI and AWRS bit. As for Gullett, is it not worth mentioning that he died in the [[1940 Canberra air disaster]? You already mention that Treloar's son died in 1943 (actually, he was missing in action presumed dead and the death was not confirmed until after the war, this seems an important distinction and was made by one of the sources I looked at - Condé 2007b). It just seems strange to say that Gullett was a "close friend" and appointed him to a government position, and then to not say anything about Gullett's death. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3) The next mention (remembering that the book is about the Australian Historical Mission) is when they arrive back in Cairo in March 1919. The photographic glass plates they had exposed were to be printed before being taken back to Australia. There is a note about the photographs by Hubert Wilkins, saying that "at least two complete sets of his Gallipoli photographs were made by AWRS dark room staff in Cairo". One of these sets was taken back to Australia by Bean, the other set was "taken by Wilkins to London and handed over to John Treloar at the AWRS headquarters in Horseferry Road. It is not known what happened to this group of images." (p.182) Might be worth mentioning this in some way, and also mentioning Wilkins, and maybe even that the AWRS London headquarters were in Horseferry Road, though some of this might be too much detail.
    • I've added the Horseferry Road bit (this was also where the AIF's main administrative headquarters was located), but the bit about the photographs seems fairly unimportant so I haven't included it. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Horseferry Road bit is actually not quite correct as you've used it in the article. A more accurate picture of the location history of the AWRS in London is given in another source, one that you've already used in the article. I'll give details of this below. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (4) Final mention is in the context of the opening of the AWM: "The extensive First World War displays that Bean and John Treloar put in place for the Memorial's opening have gradually been reduced to make room for new exhibitions that cover the Second World War and more recent conflicts." (p.215) The preceding paragraph makes clear this is the 1941 opening, so the wording in the article "During Treloar's absence from the AWM its main building was opened in November 1941 without his input into the design of its galleries" seems to contradict the bit I've just quoted. Can this be double-checked in other sources?
    • That wording was a bit stronger than what the source actually stated; I've tweaked this and removed the inconsistency between the sources. I've also added a reference to some of the displays Treloar oversaw still being on display in the modern AWM. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (5) One other point: do you know the approximate date or year when Treloar and his wife returned to Australia after World War I? I presume 1919, but it is not stated explicitly.
That's all the comments I have for now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for your comments and providing those references - they're much appreciated Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I've given the additional page reference you asked for above, but I'd still double-check this elsewhere if possible. Also, would he have reported directly to the AWM board? If so, do you have the names of any of those on that board? I looked up who succeeded him as director of the AWM, a Major J. J. McGrath. Not sure if that is worth including or not. There are also some interesting quotes in another book I have, Sacred Places - War Memorials in the Australian Landscape (Ken Inglis, 1998). I have the 2008 paperback edition. If you have that, look at the index - if you don't, let me know and I can e-mail you typed extracts, as the quotes are quite long. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, he reported directly to the board, who generally didn't bother him much - I've added this to the article. I have checked that book for references, but the material on Treloar was limited and didn't seem to add anything significant that wasn't already in the article. Is there anything in it which you think is worth adding? I've added some material on Treloar's successor and the state in which he found the Memorial. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bit I thought relevant was on page 321-322, where Inglis briefly covers the reaction in 1921 of Treloar (and others supporting the AWM funding) to the proposal for an Australian equivalent of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (Inglis quotes from an address given by Treloar). At the time, it seems, it was feared this idea would compete with the AWM funding and proposals. In the end, an Australian Unknown Soldier memorial was established, but the date was 1993 and the location was the now long-established AWM. The bit on page 324 is interesting as well, where Inglis remarks on Australian Chivalry (1933), the AWM reproduction of works by Australian war artists, and quotes Treloar's stated intent for the book to "counteract the debased outlook in many recent war books". Inglis explicitly names some of these war books, including All Quiet on the Western Front and A Farewell to Arms, which, amazingly, had both been banned by the Australian government (the Lyons administration). Both those episodes shed some light on both Treloar and attitudes at the time. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments by Carcharoth (talk)

Some more comments, after taking a closer look at the sources used and looking around to see what else maybe should be included. I started from the war artist I mentioned above (Lambert) and looked around to see what had been said about him and Treloar, and came across an excellent article all about Trelaor and war art commissioning, with examples of several of the war artists he worked with. It is already used in the Wikipedia article, but not for much. I've given details below.

  • (1) The article is Condé, Anne-Marie (2007). "John Treloar, Official War Art and the Australian War Memorial". Australian Journal of Politics & History 53 (3): pp. 451–464. Over 13 pages of details, much of it relating directly to Treloar. It has a doi identifier (not currently in the Wikipedia article), and is available both here (paywall) and can also be accessed freely here (findarticles.com). The three main examples mentioned there are George Washington Lambert (who I already mentioned in my earlier comments) and Donald Friend and Nora Heysen. I was rather dismayed to find that this source is already used (as Condé 2007b) in the Wikipedia article on Treloar, but only to cite two sentences, neither mentioning the artists I've mentioned here. In my view, the above source (one of the few focusing on Treloar rather than mentioning him in passing) should be used here far more than it is currently, and I'm puzzled as to why what Condé has to say in that paper has been largely ignored in the Wikipedia article so far.
    • While interesting, the bulk of that article is unfortunately not very useful for the purpose of this article (I was quite disappointed when I first came across it). It's focused on case studies of Treloar's relationship with three of the many artists who worked for him over the years in his various jobs, and I can't see how much use can be made of this material without violating WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY. What details in that journal article were you "dismayed" (which seems a rather strong word!) weren't included in this article? I've several extra references from it, and some material on his relaxed relationship with artists, but the rest of it seems too specialised. It's worth noting that several other references go into detail on minor aspects of Treloar's career (for instance, the details of how he helped fix up the AIF's war diaries, his relationship with official photographers and - in all seriousness - his attitude towards the records generated by the AIF's field bakery units), but I've also not included these details on grounds of balance and WP:SUMMARY. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) An earlier work Australian archival history, a first foray: the Commonwealth situation, 1927-1977, has something on Treloar, though only a couple of pages. Might be worth a look, though probably doesn't have anything later works already have.
  • (3) There is a nice vignette here, with some more on Treloar. It also mentions Syd Gullett (who was Henry Gullet's cousin - care needs to be taken to ensure that those two Gullets aren't being mixed up in some sources). That vignette says: "the handful of members of the original Australian War Records Section, gathered around John Treloar, with Syd Gullett on his motorbike, wearing the faded khaki of the AIF". Syd Gullett is also mentioned here.
    • I've already drawn on that as a source (Stanley 2001). I was aware of the two Gulletts, and they haven't been mixed up (I actually looked into creating an article on Sid Gullett a few years ago, but he didn't seem to meet WP:BIO). Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (4) There is a "John Treloar Grant" (also called 'grant-in-aid') for research that is awarded by the AWM, though annoyingly they don't seem to document it anywhere online. If you can pin that down, it would be a nice addition to the legacy section.
  • (5) The AWRS location bit needs to be checked (as I mentioned above). I pointed out a mention in Gooding (2009) of Horseferry Road, but a better source for this is Condé (2007): Imagining a collection. Creating Australia's Records of War. That article includes the following: "the Australian War Records Section has been formed, and is located at the Public Record Office, Chancery Lane, London W.C.2. [...] As a result of Treloar’s efforts in mid-1917, records started pouring into his two rooms at the PRO and later he moved the section to larger premises in Westminster, opposite AIF Administrative Headquarters in Horseferry Road." So the article needs correcting here to include the Public Record Office (as this source is already used in the article, somewhat surprised this error didn't get picked up by those who had read that source already).
  • (6) Finally, there are other articles published by Condé that are probably worth looking at, particularly since the 'Imagining a collection' source (linked above) includes this: "Anne-Marie Condé has worked as a historian at the Australian War Memorial since 1993. She is writing a biography of John Treloar, long-time Director of the Memorial."
If that biography is eventually completed and published, it should help immensely with the rewrite and extension of Wikipedia's article on Treloar that will almost certainly be needed at that point. I've said in the past that if new biographies are planned or pending, then going for FA status can be seem a bit pointless. I realise that FAs can only ever be as comprehensive as the sources available at the time, but if this article attains FA status I hope there will be a commitment to carry out a future rewrite when needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Work on the biography was broken off in 2008 or 2009 when Condé moved jobs (see page 38 of the AWM's 2008-09 Annual Report). It goes without saying that it it's ever completed and published I'll draw on it to improve the article, and the same applies to other new works (note the use of a book published in 2011 which mentions Treloar's role in July 1916 :) ). I've just read through Condé's 2007 article 'War history on scraps of paper' in the journal Public History Review, but it wasn't useful (it mentions various plans Treloar had to put documents on display and unsuccessful projects to print reproductions of significant documents, but this seems pretty obscure for the purpose of this article, and the journal article's focus was on the AWM's use of documents over the years rather than Treloar). Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies for not replying earlier. Got sidetracked a bit. I'm sorry to hear that work on the biography was broken off. You are right that 'dismayed' was too strong a word to use, but I thought some parts of that paper did have bits that could be used. I may try and quote some bits, but maybe others commenting here might have time to read it and give their opinions? This, in my view, is the core of what FAC discussions should be about. Not tidying up and polishing articles, but ensuring that use of the sources and the balance of an article, and decisions such as concluding that a particular source is largely not useful, all receive proper scrutiny, rather than being waved through. My view is that at a minimum the "art" article should go in a further reading section, as it contains much that would interest a reader wanting to read more. I know a link already exists in the references, but references and further reading play a different role - the former allows verification, the latter is for further reading. It is also helpful to identify which sources are suitable for further reading, as otherwise you are leaving the reader to fend for themselves when trying to decide which of the sources would make suitable reading if they want to read more. This is particularly important when you are discarding some sources for being "too detailed", but still using them briefly to reference a few sentences here and there. A further reading entry also has the advantage that you can annotate it with a brief description and link to the three artists mentioned. One more point: given that Lambert was one of the key AWM artists (it says this in the article), I think not mentioning him risks unbalancing the article by omission, though I accept your point that including too much strays into WP:UNDUE territory (though not as much as you might think - if the sources say a lot about Treloar and art, then the article should too). I'm not so sure why you have invoked WP:SUMMARY - what is the reason for mentioning that above? You think that source is better used in another article? A section in the AWM article on their art commissioning? Possibly. Hopefully it will get used for that at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Including a reference in both the references section and a 'further reading' section would probably violate WP:FURTHER, especially as the list of references for this article isn't large. More generally, the inclusion of 'further reading' sections in FAs is generally frowned on as the article is meant to draw on all the key works on the topic. I do get your point though; I just don't think there's a way of addressing it without people complaining about MOS problems. This article is about Treloar, and not the AWM's art program so I don't want to include too strong an emphasis on this; as well as the AWM article, we also have the Australian official war artists article where this topic would best be covered (and hopefully will be, as it's a very interesting topic). In regards to Lambert, Condé writes that her selection of the three artists she selected as case studies in her article was on the basis of them being quite different to Treloar, and not that they had a close relationship with the man (page 452), so emphasising their relationship seems unjustified. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • As this is an article on a relatively limited topic, you have a point, but you are wrong to say "More generally, the inclusion of 'further reading' sections in FAs is generally frowned on as the article is meant to draw on all the key works on the topic." You may be confusing further reading with 'See also', which indeed should be folded into the article wherever possible. Have a look through FAs and see how many have further reading sections. Byzantine Empire#Further reading is just one example among what I suspect are many. See also Guy Fawkes Night#Further reading. I am going to look into this further and add more examples of what I consider to be good further reading sections at WT:FAC. One more point, the content of a further reading is most not certainly a MOS issue. The only thing MOS would have to say about a further reading section is where it should be located and how it should be formatted. The presence and content of a further reading section is an authorial/editorial decision, not a copyediting decision. Having said that, I agree that the article in question is probably best used in the AWM and/or Australian war artist article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would say it is nonsense that "the inclusion of 'further reading' sections in FAs is generally frowned on as the article is meant to draw on all the key works on the topic". For some narrower subjects it is reasonable to expect all key works to be used, but for others it is not, not to mention works in other languages etc. And there are very often going to be tangential works, as appears to be the case here. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, that's the message I got when I last nominated an article for FA status which included a further reading section. The journal article in question here has now been referenced seven times in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Treloar_(museum_administrator)/archive1&oldid=1136096945"