Wikipedia:Peer review/Ronald Skirth/archive1

Ronald Skirth

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to resubmit it to FAC and would like to get any suggestions on improvements that would help it to pass as FA. (A previous FAC process is archived on the talk page, and I believe all objections from that have been addressed.)

Thanks, Dwab3 (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: An intriguing article, that needs a bit more work.

"...he made deliberate errors in targeting calculations to try to ensure the guns of his battery missed their aiming point." Perhaps I am naive, but...wouldn't the range simply be recalculated and the guns fired again? This point is reinforced later in the text, when we learn that he mistargeted the guns so that they "never once hit an inhabited target on the first attempt" (my emphasis

Have clarified this - it was on the first attempt, so that the enemy had fair warning to evacuate. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On the same day he had an epiphany when he stumbled across the body of a dead German of about his own age..." Whose choice of phrase is "he had an epiphany"? If it is in the sources I suggest you put it in quotes, and attribute it.

It was originally in quotes and a previous reviewer (I think at GAN) suggested removing it - see talk page. I am happy to put it back in, but maybe should get consensus on this? Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skirth and a comrade "deserted their posts"? That is a capital offence in the face of the enemy. The phrase is also suggestive of cowardice. I would suggest a change to the less emotive "left their posts".

Good point, thank you. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He felt that the "just war" he had signed up for was anything but..." Why did he conclude that the war was unjust, rather than merely brutal? Does the source give any amplification?
What reason is given for his declining the Military Medal though he accepted others?

Have given brief explanation of this. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Later Life" section: This deal with Skirth's life from 22 to 80, which can hardly describe as "later life". I suggest you find a more appropriate title. If the section is a summary account of Skirth's life, it is extremely thin - we learn almost nothing about him. Did he join or seek association with any pacifist groups? Was he religious, et. etc? Also, the section needs to mention the memoir, and perhaps indicate what caused him to write it, so many years after his experiences
"After the war, Skirth returned to England to commence teacher training in September 1919, which he had signed up for before he had left to serve in the army." Needs better phrsaing. Suggest: "In September 1919 Skirth returned to England, to commence teacher training for which he had signed up before leaving to serve in the army."

Have reworded as you suggest. Dwab3 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was it that labelled him "crank, visionary, communistic and impractical"?
Character and beliefs section: rather than keeping this as a separate section, you might consider distributing the material to earlier parts of the article. It would help flesh out the War service and "Later life" sections.
Thomas D'Oyly Snow was a general. Unless we are told that, the point of John Snow's anecdote is largely lost.

Thanks for this good point - have amended. Dwab3 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reaction: the comments of critics should be paraphrased and summarised, perhaps with the odd quotation of key phrases. They must not be presented in verbatim blocks (copyvio issues).
Ref 38 needs to be formatted
Page range in refs 20 and 34 need dashes not hyphens. 34 needs to be pp. not p., and for consistency the range should be written as "352–353"

Have corrected these.Dwab3 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot link goes to a disambiguation page.

Thanks - have fixed this.Dwab3 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions help. As I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, please leave a message on my talkpage if you have any issues you wish to raise regarding this review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]