Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Donald Forrester Brown

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 promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Donald Forrester Brown[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

As we are in the last year of the WWI centenary, I have decided to attempt to have all of the articles for New Zealand's WWI VC recipients brought up to A-Class. Having started the process for Cyril Bassett, I now nominate Donald Brown for A-Class. He was the second soldier in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) of WWI to be awarded the VC, which was the first to be as a result of an action on the Western. As he was a posthumous recipient, the article is on the short side. I have done some expansion work in recent weeks and the article has just been through a GA review. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and hopefully seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

image review

File:Donald_Forrester_Brown.jpg: the textual licensing statement provided is not consistent with the tag used. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have replaced the image with one that is appropriately tagged (I think) for Commons. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me. One question: is Totara the Totara Valley? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Hawkeye. RE Totara, I'm not sure that's the one since it seems to be near Timaru. I suspect it is more likely to be the Totara redlink at this template since it is in the same region as Oamuru. Either way, I don't want to link it until I can be certain but the sources don't provide enough certainty. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Zawed, nice work as usual. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

do we know anything more about his family, for instance is father's occupation, or his mother's name, or if he had any siblings? This seems to provide some information: [1]

Thanks, I have added some family information from that website. I'm not sure of its reliability but it is the only one that mentions his mother's name and number of children. I was able to find some that supported the fact that his father was a draper. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

do we know what Brown's unit did between May and September 1916? This source might say: [2]

Have added this from the source plus Gray. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown, by now a sergeant, was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his actions in the Battle of Flers–Courcelette... As it took some time for the award, I'd probably not mention the VC at this point

Have deleted as per suggestion. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal J. Rodgers: suggest using his full name here as it is known. I would then just change the note slightly to read: Rodgers was later commissioned as a second lieutenant and received the Military Medal for his part in the battle. He later died of wounds on 30 July 1917 after the subsequent battle.

Have revised as per your suggestion. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

do we know where the medal was presented to his father?

Have found a source for this. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved 2012-12-10 suggest 10 December 2012 for consistency with the other dates in the article

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this source indicates that the medal has been displayed on loan a few times, but remains in the family's possession: [3] Might be worth mentioning the public displays?

Have expanded, found another example of a loan that I have added as well. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Zawed, I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cinderella157[edit]

Hi, my biggest comment is with respect to readability and sentence structure. There are many long and complex sentences which significantly reduce readability - something which, I too have been accused. The prose really does need a copy-edit to improve readability. In many cases, long sentences can often be broken at existing punctuation with minor changes to wording. Normally, I would work with you on this but ATM, I am quite time poor with RW things. My apologies but hope this is enough to indicate my cocers and how it might be improved. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: thanks for taking the time to have a look at this. I was initially a little surprised that you thought there were "many long and complex sentences" because it is a relatively short article. However, on drilling into the article into it, I did find several clumsily worded sentences so have reworked these and some of this work involved breaking sentences into two. See how it reads now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zawed, you are certainly on the right track. I have provided a sample edit, indicative of further improvement. Normally, I would take the time to do these things myself. My apologies for not. I hope that this example is sufficient. Short sentences improve readability. Qualifying clauses can usually be rewritten in a shorter form without compromising accuracy. Hope this helps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: I disagree a little here; that may be your preference but I personally find a series of short sentences quite jarring to read. Regardless, I have gone back and revised a few more sentences. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zawed, this is not just a matter of personal preference. Readability affects accessibility, comprehension and retention. An active voice is easier to comprehend because the relationship of (prepositional) phrases is more direct. I think the readability has benefited markedly for what been relatively minor changes. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2018 (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.