Talk:Harold Barrowclough/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 11:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• G'day, interesting article. Good work so far. I did a little work a few years back on 3rd Division (New Zealand), so have read a little about Barrowclough, although I'm definately not an expert. I made a few tweaks (please check you are happy with my changes). Additionally, I have the following comments/suggestions in relation to reviewing this article for GA:

• perhaps reword the lead slightly, "He also resumed duty in the Territorial Force until..." --> "He also resumed duty in the Territorial Force, serving until..."?  Done
• are there any details about his parents that could be added to the early life section, Crawford eems to list them and given that the section is quite small, it might be good to include this sort of detail: [1] Added a little.  Done
• "He departed for overseas service in October 1915..." Do we know if he went to Egypt first before going to France/Belgium? If so, perhaps it might be added to clarify his movements? Clarified. Done
• inconsistent spelling: "programme" v "programs";  Done
• "NDL's efforts were deemed to be more necessary than ever" ... deemed by who? Have rephrased.  Done
• inconsistency in presentation: "2nd NZEF" v "2NZEF"  Done
• inconsistency in punctuation: " In 1942 he was..." v. "In 1953, he moved..." (use of introductory comma);  Done
• inconsistent presentation "Major-General" v. "Major General";  Done
• "the 3rd Division moved to New Caledonia on garrison duty while the American forces previously stationed there fought in the Battle of Guadalcanal" --> could a rought date be added here? It would help the reader to provide a bit more context;  Done
• the body of the article does not seem to mention his promotion to major general; Curiously, none of the major sources I relied on specifically discuss the promotion. I was eventually able to track a newspaper article that mentioned it.  Done
• "His wife, who he had married in 1921, predeceased him in 1964" --> I wonder about including his wife's name here as she hasn't been named in the article at all. For instance, "His wife, Mary, who he had married in 1921, predeceased him in 1964."  Done
• This source might be used for further expansion in the future, if you are looking to take the article beyond GA: The Pacific; Thanks; I actually have the book as I find it easier to find things than using the website - a little old school I suppose. But my books will soon be going into storage when I move house so will be forced to use online resources more.
• the infobox mentions that he received the Efficiency Decoration, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body of the article or cited. It might not be significant enough to mention in the prose, so if you don't want to add it in, I can understand. In that case, I'd suggest just adding a citation next to the postnominals in the lead if there is a reference that covers all of his decorations as listed. This seems to cover a few on p 59. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)  Done

• Happy to discuss any of these points if you don't agree; just let me know. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review AR, always appreciated. I have dealt with the issues you have noted above. Let me know if anything else needs tweaking. Zawed (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, your changes look good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose: clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling, copyright): b (MoS: lead, layout, W2W, fiction and list):

• The prose is of good quality and the article appears MOS compliant in the required areas.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Issue discussed, dealt with above;
• The article is well referenced to reliable sources; no OR detected.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Issues discussed, dealt with above.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues detected.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues detected.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• I'm happy that this article meets the GA criteria. Good work and good luck with taking it further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)