Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Treloar (museum administrator)

John Treloar (museum administrator)

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.

Promoted. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Featured article candidates/John Treloar (museum administrator)/archive1

While John Treloar seems to have never fired a shot in anger, he was the chief archivist of the Australian military during both world wars and one of the key figures in the establishment of the Australian War Memorial. This article is my first attempt at developing an A class biography, and I'd be interested in comments about whether it makes the cut. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now (sorry!). All in all, this look like a nice piece of work however, I have a few issues. Please forgive any formatting errors, I'm more accustomed to GA reviewing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Collapsed for readbility

The lead is a bit thin. For an article almost 4,000 word long, I would think you could easily get away with another paragraph—remember it's a summary of the article.
- I'll have a go at this
  - OK, done Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a slight tendency towards praising him, of example, phrase like: "worked tirelessly", "Treloar worked enthusiastically and intensely as commander of the AWRS, and had to be ordered to take holidays", "he was only 26 years of age, but was responsible for the difficult task of establishing the Museum", "led him to spend long hours at work. He typically worked for six days each week, normally staying until late at night"
- This reflects the tone used in all the sources, but I see what you mean and have tweaked the wording a bit. I've also included all the significant criticisms of him as well (eg, that he was a workaholic, obsessive, didn't collect enough artefacts from World War II, didn't get on with many of his colleagues and was basically ineffective in his last six years as head of the AWM).
You seem to be lacking a few commas, mainly at the start of sentences: phrases like "while in Melbourne", "On [date]" and "in [month]" should be followed by a comma
- I've added a few extra commas, though I generally err on the side of not adding commas as they can break sentences up and read oddly. Please do add more where you think they'd help though.
The prose gets a bit choppy in the second paragraph of #World War I: three short sentences in a row doesn't make for a great read
- Fixed
While in Melbourne he resumed a friendship with Clarissa Aldridge..., this is the first time she's been mentioned, which leaves the reader a little confused. You should explain who she is there or mention her earlier in the article
- Unfortunately none of the sources on Treloar provide any background on her or context to work in their pre-war friendship.
You need to be consistent in linking of ranks: lieutenant is linked, but captain, three lines down, isn't.
- Fixed
After arriving to London, to me that sounds like terrible grammar. I could be wrong on that, but I think "arriving in London" is more common.
- Fixed
Treloar considered resigning in July 1922 to take up a position in the Department of Immigration but decided against doing so. It would be nice to know what changed his mind if the facts are available
- There are no details on this unfortunately
Why are there quotes around 'Australian War Museum Memorial'? If they;re necessary, they should be double quotes (" not ') per the MoS
- Removed
Ditto "'service annual'"
- Removed
Why is WWII linked for its second mention in #World War II but not the first? If it's going to be linked, it should be linked the first time
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an interesting read.

Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~: All my concerns (below) have been addressed.
- no dabs, ext links all work, alt text present (no action required);
- images appear to be correctly licenced (no action required);
- in the lead you use "Australian Imperial Force", but then in the World War I section "First Australian Imperial Force" - probably should be consistent;
  - Fixed
- in the World War I section, "7am to midnight". I think that per WP:MOSTIME this should be "7:00 am to midnight" (using a non breaking space) - I'm not certain of this, though;
  - Changed to '7 am to midnight' (7:00 am seems unnecessary and looks a bit odd in this context, so hopefully this is OK)
    - Yes, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Establishing the War Memorial section, there is a contraction - " wasn't". While there appears to have been some recent debate about whether this is acceptable, I suggest rewording to "was not" to make the language sound more formal (suggestion only);
  - Fixed
- in the Establishing the War Memorial section, "traveled" - I think this should be "travelled" per the Macquarie dictionary;
  - Fixed
- in the Establishing the War Memorial section, I think paired commas are needed in this sentence: "In that year, Treloar and 24 other Memorial staff moved into the uncompleted building in Canberra and the museum in Sydney closed to enable the collection to be relocated". I suggest adding them after "Treloar" and "staff"
  - Done
- in the Postwar section, "hemorrhage" - I believe this should be "haemorrhage" per the Macquarie dictionary;
  - Fixed
- in the Postwar section, "labeled" - I believe this should be "labelled" per the Macquarie dictionary;
  - Fixed
- in the References section, some of the hyphens should probably be endashes, for instance "1917-1990", "(1885 - 1952)". I'll leave this as suggestion only, though, as there appears to be some backlash to WP:DASH. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've used the style in the titles of the original sources for consistency with how they were presented. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No dramas, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Completed my usual copyedit but the prose in general was very good I think; other aspects -- structure, coverage, referencing and supporting materials -- all look fine. Great to see a quality article on a figure so important to Oz military history, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

What's a service annual book? - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's explained in the next sentence ("an equivalent of The Anzac Book, which was a collection of anecdotes written by Australian soldiers during the Gallipoli Campaign"), but I've clarified this.
Support per standard disclaimer. Almost nothing to fix; great job. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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