Talk:Richard Haking/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: HandsomeFella (talk · contribs) 20:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Haking was probably born in Halifax, West Yorkshire" Do we have a full name and date of birth?

Mention his three sisters?

The meme that "morale and leadership were the most important factor in winning a battle... that the attacker would have the advantage over the defender, even if numerically inferior" has been thoroughly debunked. Are you sure that Corrigan is not being quoted out of context?

The GSO1 was not the chief of staff but the head of the operations branch. Administration and logistics was under the AA&QMG, who was also answerable to the GOC

Haig nominated Morland, Horne, Gough and Haking for command of a corps; there was no mention of an army command

"Lloyd agrees with Prior & Wilson" You haven't said who they are. Do you have their book? It isn't in the references.

Ousting of Sir John French: MOS:PARA deplores one-sentence paragraphs

BEF is not defined in the body

There is some inconsistency regarding the hyphenation of ranks

Do not abbreviate the ranks!!!

Did Bourne write the chapter on Haking in Beckett and Corvi? If so, can he be credited?

Give Munro, Barrow, Butler, Harrington, Howard, Walker etc names in full on first use

General Walker -> Major-General Harold Walker. Should also mention that he commanded the 1st Australian Division

"for which insubordination he would most likely have been relieved had he been commanding British troops" I flatly do not believe this; Walker was a British Army officer. What exactly does the source say?

"the 5th Australian Division under J. W. McCay" -> "the 5th Australian Division under Major-General J. W. McCay"

You mention the 5th Division, the least experienced of the Australian divisions, having only recently been formed and arrived in France, but not the 61st Division. The reader might infer that the references to inexperienced troops referred to the former only, which was not the case.

Note e requires a footnote (use Bean)

You talk about the density of the artillery, but do not say how many guns there was

"18th and 14th Australian brigades" That is an error; it was the 8th Brigade.

"Paul Cobb puts the blame with McCay and his staff for not processing Haking's orders quickly enough." You already refuted that.

"10pm" space before pm (MOS:TIME)
"Haking was not a believer in "defence in depth", but Andy Simpson argues that this was not necessarily a bad thing." That's not what he says.

Link Edwardian era, Brigadier-general (United Kingdom), cult of the offensive, QF 18-pounder gun, trench raiding, Fromelles, Lille, Ypres, Messines, Vimy Ridge, 8th Brigade (Australia), 14th Brigade (Australia), 15th Brigade (Australia), 58th Battalion (Australia), Royal Flying Corps, Cyril Wagstaff

Given that GA is supposed to be a low bar, the above is submitted for consideration.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HandsomeFella: Any progress on this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some progress, but I guess I hadn't done my homework properly. It will take some time, so you can reject/deny this for the time being, and I'll try again later. Thanks for your invaluable input. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you renominate, give me a ping and will review it straight away. Let me know if you need help with any of the issues above. I have a very extensive library here. The Battle of Fromelles remains a raw nerve here in Australia, mainly because they are still digging up diggers [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.