Talk:Thomas Pilcher

Untitled

I could not figure where to put this in the article, but it amused me greatly: Pilcher's entry in Who's Who does actually give "hunting, shooting, fishing" as his hobbies. Andrew Gray (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Pilcher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 10:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Andrew Gray (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 10:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Early career "Pilcher spent his early career as an infantry officer, first seeing active service on colonial campaigns in Nigeria in the late 1890s followed by command of an infantry battalion and a mounted infantry column in the Second Boer War (1899–1902), on which he published a book of lessons learned in 1903. Following the war, he quickly rose to command brigades on home service followed by a division in Burma." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Personal life and writing "However, further promotion was checked by his having come into conflict with his commander-in-chief, who regarded him as unsuited for senior command in part because of his writings; Pilcher was a keen student of the German army and its operational methods, and an active theorist who published a number of controversial books advocating the adoption of new military techniques. In 1906 he (anonymously) published an invasion novel, The Writing On The Wall." & "He had married Kathleen Gonne, daughter of a cavalry officer, in 1889; the marriage was strained, partly through Pilcher's womanising and gambling habits, and partly through his dislike for Maud Gonne, Kathleen's sister and a prominent Irish nationalist. The couple divorced in 1911, having had four children; one would later become a High Court judge, while another died on the Western Front in 1915. Pilcher remarried, to his mistress, in 1913." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, should be compressed further.) Major Point 3: First World War "He was sacked due to a refusal to continue unsuccessful attacks during the Battle of the Somme, and following his enforced retirement published a number of military books," & "On the outbreak of the First World War he was on leave in England, and eventually obtained the command of 17th (Northern) Division, a New Army volunteer unit. He commanded it during its first year on the Western Front, though without great respect from either his superiors or his subordinates. The division supported the initial attacks at the Battle of the Somme in July 1916, where Pilcher again clashed with his superiors over his refusal to push on an attack without pausing for preparations, believing it would result in failure and heavy casualties. The division was relieved after ten days of fighting on 11 July, and Pilcher was immediately sacked and sent to command a reserve centre in England. From here, he wrote a series of books before retiring in 1919." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, points are repeated.) Major Point 4: Later life "He ran as a parliamentary candidate for the splinter right-wing National Party in the 1918 general election, and continued a loose involvement with right-wing politics which extended to membership in the early British Fascisti." & "as well as unsuccessfully standing as an anti-Coalition candidate in the 1918 general election." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, few points are repeated.) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Early career "Pilcher spent his early career as an infantry officer, first seeing active service on colonial campaigns in Nigeria in the late 1890s followed by command of an infantry battalion and a mounted infantry column in the Second Boer War (1899–1902), on which he published a book of lessons learned in 1903. Following the war, he quickly rose to command brigades on home service followed by a division in Burma." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Personal life and writing "However, further promotion was checked by his having come into conflict with his commander-in-chief, who regarded him as unsuited for senior command in part because of his writings; Pilcher was a keen student of the German army and its operational methods, and an active theorist who published a number of controversial books advocating the adoption of new military techniques. In 1906 he (anonymously) published an invasion novel, The Writing On The Wall." & "He had married Kathleen Gonne, daughter of a cavalry officer, in 1889; the marriage was strained, partly through Pilcher's womanising and gambling habits, and partly through his dislike for Maud Gonne, Kathleen's sister and a prominent Irish nationalist. The couple divorced in 1911, having had four children; one would later become a High Court judge, while another died on the Western Front in 1915. Pilcher remarried, to his mistress, in 1913." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, should be compressed further.) Major Point 3: First World War "He was sacked due to a refusal to continue unsuccessful attacks during the Battle of the Somme, and following his enforced retirement published a number of military books," & "On the outbreak of the First World War he was on leave in England, and eventually obtained the command of 17th (Northern) Division, a New Army volunteer unit. He commanded it during its first year on the Western Front, though without great respect from either his superiors or his subordinates. The division supported the initial attacks at the Battle of the Somme in July 1916, where Pilcher again clashed with his superiors over his refusal to push on an attack without pausing for preparations, believing it would result in failure and heavy casualties. The division was relieved after ten days of fighting on 11 July, and Pilcher was immediately sacked and sent to command a reserve centre in England. From here, he wrote a series of books before retiring in 1919." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, few points are repeated.) Major Point 4: Later life "He ran as a parliamentary candidate for the splinter right-wing National Party in the 1918 general election, and continued a loose involvement with right-wing politics which extended to membership in the early British Fascisti." & "as well as unsuccessfully standing as an anti-Coalition candidate in the 1918 general election." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, few points are repeated.) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done "Major-General Thomas David Pilcher, CB, (8 July 1858 – 14 December 1928) was a British Army officer, who commanded a mounted infantry unit in the Second Boer War and the 17th (Northern) Division during the First World War." Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. (WP:CREDENTIAL) I think the rank "Major-General" should not be in the first sentence. While WP:CREDENTIAL may suggest this, I think it's probably out of synch with standard practice in the subject area. Most military FAs do this without any objection, and WP:CONTEXTLINK explicitly treats it as acceptable in the case of military ranks (but advises against linking) - "For example, a person's title or office, such as colonel, naturally appears ahead of their name, but the word "Colonel" should not have a link, since it doesn't establish context." Andrew Gray (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks! Clear now! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies:  Done Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is difficult to read and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway. The lead is too long considering the article size and should be compressed. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER) Fix "Pilcher died in 1928, aged 70, of pneumonia. He was survived by his second wife.[1]" in the Later life section. Not sure this can really be expanded without padding. (I sometimes add a note on papers, of which there seem to be none, or estate, but haven't been able to find probate details.) Merging it into the previous para seems more awkward than leaving it be. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks! Clear now! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the lead can be improved.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Andrew, please feel free to strike out any recommendation from this review which you think will not help in improving the article which is our main aim here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I confess I'm not quite clear about some of your concerns with the lead - the comments are very densely presented! - but I've trimmed it a bit and done some general tidying. The other two notes are replied to inline. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think the following repetition of points in the lead needs to be fixed: "He was sacked in 1916 due to a refusal to continue unsuccessful attacks during the Battle of the Somme, and following his enforced retirement published a number of military books, as well as unsuccessfully standing as a candidate for the right-wing National Party in the 1918 general election." "Pilcher was sacked and sent to command a reserve centre in England. From here, he wrote a series of books before retiring in 1919. He ran as a parliamentary candidate for the splinter right-wing National Party in the 1918 general election, "
• For this paragraph in the lead "Pilcher had married … while another died on the Western Front in 1915.", I’d recommend the following revision "After a strained marriage with Kathleen Gonne, sister of the Irish Nationalist Maud Gonne, Pilcher married Millicent Knight-Bruce, the wife of Major James Knight-Bruce." Andrew, please feel free to disagree. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray:: Hi Andrew!, I hope you're watching this page and have not forgotten about this article. If you're busy, please feel free to take your time. No worries and no rush. If you disagree with my recommendations, I assure you that it's okay and none of them are mandatory. As a gentle reminder, I'm putting the article on hold. I hope you don't mind. Thanks! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - apologies, I let this one slide. I think I'm happier in general with duplicative lead sentences than you are, but I've trimmed it down a bit and hopefully looks okay. I'm not keen on the suggested change for the last para (Maud Gonne is a major figure, James Knight-Bruce at best a footnote, and it seems wrong to give them equal emphasis) but I've worked in a mention of the second marriage. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay! No need to apologise. Thanks, Andrew, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC) --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)