Talk:Leonard Thornton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 14:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A well constructed article. Will get back with necessary suggestions within two or three days. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions 26 August 2016

In section 1; the sentence, An excellent student, he was also a natural sportsman, participating in squash, hockey and boxing. He graduated from Duntroon first in his class and was awarded the King's Medal for academic excellence. can be reworded in a better way as, Apart from being a good student, he was also a good sportsman. He participated in squash, hockey and boxing. While he graduated from Duntroon, he was awarded the King's Medal for academic excellence for standing first in his class.. I suggest this because the words "excellent" and "natural" may not be neutral. It is something like praising the subject. And for the word "natural", when used as "natural sportsman", we never know whether it is his natural ability or he learnt the sport and mastered it. So this must necessarily be changed. Please reword it and you may tweak it further if possible. Apart from this, in the same sentence, you have mentioned nothing about his horsing skills, which has been mentioned in the book source you have provided (Reid 2003 p.210.), that he was an excellent horsemen. Please consider adding this.

Have revised. I have removed reference to the individual sports as I was concerned about too closely paraphrasing the source. Zawed (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the other works of infobox change it to "Ambassador of New Zealand to Vietnam (1972–74)".

Done. Zawed (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In section 2.1; para 1; It mentioned that he was posted to 5th Field Regiment after the outbreak of war. Here nothing is said about his position, but it was said in the book that he was appointed as an "Adjutant". Consider adding this.

Done. Zawed (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.1; para 2; I think the main 2NEF base in the Middle East, on 11 February. must be the main 2NZEF base in the Middle East, on 11 February.. Because you have used 2NZEF for Second New Zealand Expeditionary Force, but never mentioned about 2NEF, and the para is saying about the same. In same para, I think Here he took command of 43 Anti-Aircraft Battery but in February 1942, as the 2nd New Zealand Division was re-organ ...... must be Here he took command of 43 Anti-Aircraft Battery. But in February 1942, as the 2nd New Zealand Division was re-organ ......, because "he took command of 43 Anti-Aircraft Battery but in February 1942, as the 2n...." is very confusing with the use of comma(,).

Done. Zawed (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.1; para 3; Add a comma(,) after "....second-in-command of 4th Field Regiment". So it should be "....second-in-command of 4th Field Regiment,^ref ......". Also in the same para add "he" after "but the following month". Finally it should read ......rtillery in September 1942 as second-in-command of 4th Field Regiment,^ref but the following month he was posted to the staff of th..... In the last sentence, instead of the word "fighting" the word "conflict" may be used.

Done. Zawed (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.1; para 3; Abbreviation of "2nd New Zealand Division", "2NZEF" is preferable from the second use. The sentence " and appointed Commander, Royal Artillery, for the division." is a bit confusing, consider rewording it.

The abbreviation 2NZEF is for the Second New Zealand Expeditionary Force not the 2nd New Zealand Division (which is one of the formations of the 2NZEF). I prefer not to abbreviate the division as it doesn't have a commonly used abbreviation (compared to the well known 2NZEF). However I have revised the text to reduce the instances in which "2nd New Zealand Division" appears in the article. It is pretty clear that there is only one division mentioned so there shouldn't be any confusion with any other divisions. Zawed (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly whether this is right, apart from all these, throughout the article the ranks and positions were used in small letters were used. For example, "lieutenant colonel" instead of "Lieutenant Colonel", "brigade major" instead of "Brigade Major", "battery captain" instead of "Battery Captain". I am not sure, please look the MOS of military history for this. I will also refer it once.

It is common practice to use upper case when being used as an individual's title. So "...he came to the attention of its commander, Major General Bernard Freyberg,..." is OK (because the rank is being used as his title). Lower case is otherwise used, eg. "...June 1943, Thornton, promoted to lieutenant colonel, was..."

I will review the other sections tomorrow and suggest improvements if required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, thank you for taking the time to review the article, I believe I have addressed your concerns thus far. Zawed (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2016

Section 2.2; para 1; The sentence In 1948 he commenced a two-year term as Deputy Chief of Staff and during this time helped introduce the compulsory military training scheme which commenced in May 1950. I feel some confusion in the sentence. What does "during this time helped introduce the compulsory military training scheme" mean? Please correct it.

Have revised. Zawed (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.2; para 1; In the last sentence i.e. "Thornton began to demonstrate the diplomatic skills that would prove useful in later life". I suggest replacing the word "the" with the word "his", and also remove the word life in the end. So it reads "Thornton began to demonstrate his diplomatic skills that would prove useful later." or "career" can be used instead of life. "Thornton began to demonstrate his diplomatic skills that would prove useful in later career."

Done, partially, I did a small variation on your suggestion. Zawed (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.2; para 2; Add article "the" before "Quartermaster General of the New Zealand Army" because it is the only post in NZA. Also before Adjutant General. A comma(,) after "New Zealand Army". Finally it would read "In 1955, Thornton returned to New Zealand to serve as the Quartermaster General of the New Zealand Army, and this was followed as a term from 1956 to 1958 as the Adjutant General."

Done, partially. I think it reads better to refer to "its Adjutant General." Zawed (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.2; para 2; 4th sentence; "In this role, he gained valuable insight in th....." instead of "role", "capacity" fits better.

Agreed, done. Zawed (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3; I would suggest rewording the first sentence as Thornton was appointed as the New Zealand's ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam in 1972 and during this time, he also represented the country's affairs in Cambodia.

Done. Zawed (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3; In the third sentence ".....and would often commented on defence issues", I suggest removing "would". ".....and often commented on defence issues" reads good. Following that, you have mentioned about "ANZUS treaty", but this abbreviation was never defined before. Also wiki-link to the treaty's article - "ANZUS".

Done. Zawed (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3: The sentence "At one stage, he was criticised by David Lange, New Zealand's prime minister at the time, for his views." may be better worded as At one stage, he was criticised by then Prime Minister of New Zealand, David Lange, for his views.
In the lead wiki-link "Lieutenant General" to Lieutenant general (Australia).

I haven't done this one, Thornton was in the NZ Army, not the Australian Army so I don't think a link to a rank of the Australian Army is appropriate. Zawed (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for today. Once you address these, I will give the article a final read before promoting it to GA status. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Please address my first comment under today's (The current date and time is 21 December 2024 T 03:23 UTC.) date, about the sentence in section 2.2; para 1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I have responded to the outstanding comment now. Many thanks for the review! Zawed (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, all good. I promoted the article.

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]