Talk:James Hargest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: a couple of duplicate links:
  • Prime Minister of New Zealand
  • Normandy

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "...Appointed to 2nd in command of the battalion..." → "...Appointed second-in-command of the battalion..."  Done
  • "...penetrating into the enemy communication trenches, in the lead up to the battle...", consider instead: "...penetrating the enemy communication trenches in the lead up to the battle..."  Done
  • missing definite article here I think: "...given command of 2nd Battalion, Otago Infantry Regiment..." → "...given command of the 2nd Battalion, Otago Infantry Regiment..."  Done
  • "Ward Jr. retired at the end of the term,[10] and this allowed Hargest on his third attempt to enter the New Zealand Parliament in the 1931 general election, and he became an MP for the Invercargill electorate." Consider more simply: "Ward Jr. retired at the end of the term, and this allowed Hargest to enter the New Zealand Parliament in the 1931 general election on his third attempt, becoming an MP for the Invercargill electorate."  Done
  • tense here is a little off I think: "...there was a view that this may be a temporary situation that could be reassessed once Holyoake or Hargest returned to Parliament...", consider instead: "... there was a view that this was a temporary situation that could be reassessed once Holyoake or Hargest returned to Parliament..."  Done
  • "He remained a member of parliament during his time of active service..." → " He remained a member of parliament during his time on active service..."  Done
  • "With the outbreak of the war, Hargest sought to serve abroad in a command of one of the infantry brigades..." → "With the outbreak of the war, Hargest sought to serve abroad in command of one of the infantry brigades..."  Done
  • Typo here: "The brigade performed carried out training and guard duties in the area around Dover before being shipped to Egypt in early 1941."  Done
  • "The 21 Battalion..." presentation here is inconsistent with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME I believe it should be "21st Battalion".  Done
  • A little repetitive here: "...despite being aware of the importance of Maleme Airfield to the defence of Crete.[31] Despite the belated arrival..." (specifically two instances of despite close together, perhaps reword one?)  Done
  • "Hargest was critical of Freyberg's conduct of the fighting on Crete in a meeting with General Wavell..." need to use Wavell's full name and rank per WP:SURNAME (also suggest wikilinking here)  Done
  • Possible typo here: "... managed to escape using a tunnel dug from a disused chapel within the walls castle...", → "...castle walls?"  Done
  • "Hargest was one of three men..." suggest "Hargest was one of only three men..."  Done
  • "He was appointed New Zealand's observer in the D-Day landings...", consider "He was appointed New Zealand's observer of the D-Day landings..."  Done

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • All major points appear to be cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR that I could see.
  • Minor formatting issue here: " David Bateman Limited", remove "Limited" per Template:Cite book  Done

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • Level of coverage seems appropriate.
  • One minor point: "A subsequent medical assessment deemed Hargest fit only for service on the Home Front as he was still prone to bouts of shell shock...", wonder if you should clarify that this one from his previous service in the First World War - which I'm assuming it was? (minor nitpick - suggestion only)  Done
  • "One of his remaining children was killed in Malaya several years later..." are the circumstances of this known? (rough timeframe, i.e. was it during the war or after, if it wasn't during the fighting how did it occur etc).  Done

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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:

  • Images both seem to be PD and seem to have the req'd information.
  • Possible minor issue here: File:Andrew, Hargest & Freyberg, 1941.jpg - not sure if the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license is meant to be used with PD images - I.e. not sure if they are compatible that said as it does seem to be PD I don't think its a problem per se (I'm not an expert on images so you might want to investigate the policy here yourself just to be sure in case it becomes an issue if you take it to a higher review like A class or FA) - I will not hold up review on this basis.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Overall this article looks fine to me, just a couple of mostly minor prose points to deal with. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review AC - it took me a while to get the time to make all the changes but these are marked as done where action was required. RE your comment about the tag on the image; the reason for the PD/CC tags is that although it appears to be a PD image, the source website (a NZ government library website) generically releases all image files for republication with the CC 3.0 licence. So I use both tags to respect the source website licencing request. Thanks again for the review. Zawed (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the CC 3.0 licence, you are mistaken and I have removed that licence from the file. The National Library claims: "You can copy this item for personal use, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It cannot be used commercially without permission, please ask us for advice." It does come under PD, though, and this has recently been discussed at length on the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Schwede66 17:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Schwede66 - thanks for assisting with this. Anotherclown (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Passing review now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)