Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Newland/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009 [1].

James Newland

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/James Newland/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The biography of an Australian First World War Victoria Cross recipient, the article has been passed as both GA and A-Class by WikiProject Military history. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Almost there.

I've done some moderately intensive copyediting. Please confirm that I haven't broken anything.

Very happy with this. Thanks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation: you have a very pronounced tendency for a certain sentence structure in which the subject appears only following a participle phrase at the beginning of the sentence (see, for example, the second paragraph of the lead as you submitted it: "Born in the Victorian town of Highton, Newland joined...", "Returning to Australia, he continued...", "Transferring to the militia in 1907, Newland gained...", "Following the outbreak of the First World War, he was appointed...", "Wounded in the days following the landing, Newland was evacuated..."). There's nothing wrong with this sentence structure, but it can grow a little repetitive. I've mixed things up a bit in this article, but it's something you may want to be aware of in subsequent articles.
Another thing to be aware of: you underuse pronouns (in this article, in favour of Newland's name and the name of his units). Again, I've culled a few of these, so I think this article is fine, but you may want to be aware of this in the future.
One more thing to keep on eye on in your future writing: you use quite a few extraneous verbs. Rather than writing "managed to enter", just write "entered". Instead of "were able to secure", try "secured". Generally speaking, saying the same thing with fewer words is an improvement.

In response to the above, this is one of my slightly older articles, and I have been debating whether to take it to FAC or not since I worked on it some months ago. The above were major traits of my writing that have been picked up on before, and I think I have since developed my writing somewhat to reduce these issues. Abraham, B.S. (talk)

There are a few terms that I wasn't sure about, owing to my lack of familiarity with military issues. I've left these as is, but if you could confirm that "strongpoint" and "frontline" are acceptable military terms, despite being underlined in red in my browser window.

Yep, to the extent of my knowledge they are. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...which was to the left of Newland's A Company." "to the left" seems to me to be a very odd way of putting this. Is it standard in military articles to adopt this terminology in preference to "to the west of" (or whatever)?

I made a mistake here; it was actually the right. I would prefer to state the direction in terms west, etc, but the source only states "to the right of". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that references 8, 9, 13, and 18 are all for the same source. Am I mistaken?

They are all from the same publisher and are similar in composition, but are different sources. They are the official recommendations for each of Newland's decorations. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All images verifiably in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and copyedit, mate; it is much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My concerns are resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very nice article. I can't see anything that needs changing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prose reads well, pictures are tasteful and not overbearing (although a trifle repetitive - is there another picture of the subject which can replace one of the captaincy portraits), well sourced. Nice job. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the the review, mate. That is one of the pain in the butt things about such notable/decorated military personnel; one can usually only find portraits on the subject than anything. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Reliability and formatting of the sources looks good. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very good work in my opinion (although I got the last review wrong, so who knows...) Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the the review, mate. I do not think ones review can ever be really wrong; just their interpretation of the criteria may be off. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All four images look wonderful; good job. NW (Talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks for the review mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.