Talk:Alan Charlesworth/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot  c Alt text
 * no dabs found by the tools.
 * no issues with ext links.
 * all images have alt text.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * in the Post-war career section, I think Air Vice Marshal might be overlinked;
 * Correct, removed second instance.
 * in the Post-war career section, I think there might be a word missing here: "Charlesworth's workload at BCOF..." ("at BCOF headquarters"?);
 * That's probably reasonable but I think it's also fair as is because although he no doubt worked in BCOF HQ, his responsibilities would've covered the organisation as a whole.
 * in the References section, is there an edition number for the Dennis, Grey, Morris & Prior Oxford Companion to Australian Military History?
 * Have to admit I've never gone in for editions because the year distinguishes them as well so although I assume this is the 2nd I'm not certain as I don't have a copy on hand.
 * in the References, same as above for the two Odgers works and Stephens. They seem to have original years, does this mean they were reprints, or updated editions (e.g. 1st edition, 2nd edition, etc.)? If the latter, then that should probably be added to the citation template (I think the code is "|edition=1st ");
 * Stephens (which I do own) was originally published in hardback in 2001, reprinted 2002 and first published in paperback (my copy) in 2006 -- so looks like the same (1st) edition but it's not labelled as such. Odgers' official history is also a reprint. Odgers' 1996 Air Force Australia is definitely an updated edition but no idea what number -- again though I think years are the main thing.
 * No worries, I don't think its a requirement. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * in the Early career section, I suggest adding a clause stating that he initially served in the Australian Army. It seems to be implied but not explicitly stated. My suggestion is: "before joining the Australian Army and entering the Royal Military College, Duntroon in 1920";
 * Well I don't know, is one actually in the army while studying at Duntroon? My Charlesworth bios never say it explicitly either, just that he attended and graduated from Duntroon, then served in the 2nd Light Horse.
 * Yes, indeed all cadets at Duntroon are serving members of the Australian Army (except those, of course, that are in the RAAF! Or, of course, foreign cadets). Prior to entry to Duntroon an Australian cadet is "appointed" (as opposed to being "enlisted") and receives a temporary commission from the reigning monarch and a service number. They are also subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act and time at Duntroon counts for long service awards (ADM, LSM), long service leave, etc. That is how it is now and, of course, maybe it was different in the past, but I don't believe this to be the case. All service records that I've read of early Duntroon graduates state that their service in the Army began upon entry to Duntroon (or earlier if they were had previously served in the ranks). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm convinced (!) but unfortunately Charlesworth's service record is not digitized at NAA (I would've used it otherwise to finetune some of the vague dates mentioned in his ADB and Oxford Companion bios) and I just try to avoid possible synthiesis/OR -- what they say is what they say and if they don't explicitly mention the army, maybe WP doesn't need to either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries then. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "appointed Company Sergeant Major..." (do you know what company he was CSM of at Duntroon? If not, its no big deal, but if so it might make it just a little clearer that CSM is a cadet appointment at Duntroon and not so much a rank);
 * I get you and I know that CSM is more a position than a rank but no, the actual company isn't mentioned -- do you think if I made it lower case it'd help?
 * No dramas. I believe that at the time that Charlesworth would have been at Duntroon, that they had actually dropped to one company. Perhaps the way to clarify this would be to say this: "In 1923 he was appointed Company Sergeant Major within the Corps of Staff Cadets. Upon graduation he received the Sword of Honour and was granted the rank of Lieutenant". AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm only concerned with possible suggestions of OR -- the sole source I have for CSM (the ADB) simply says he was "company sergeant-major in his final year (1923)" Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "his final year...." confirms to me that the appointment was while at Duntroon (i.e. within the CSC and not elsewhere in the Army). But, fair enough, you have more experience of FAC than me, so if you think its an OR issue, then I can accept that. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, I may have misundertood the concern -- I've made clear now that he was CSM at Duntroon (though we don't know which compnay), in case there was any roon for doubt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "received the Sword of Honour" (I wonder if this should be explained (maybe even just with a clause). Some readers will not understand its significance);
 * To be honest I'm not sure I understand its significance either; both it and the King's/Queen's Medal appear to be for the top students, one apparently for a single score and the other an aggregate, but none of my Charlesworth refs explicitly say that in connection with him. If we find out precisely it might be better to put a subsection in the Duntroon article like King's/Queen's Medal and just link to it....
 * No dramas. I've always wanted to add something like that to the Duntroon article, but so far I haven't got any reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll probably do so next time I get to the Mitchell but is it a stopper for now? A link (in time) seems to me the best solution in case the description is a bit of mouthful (to differentiate it from the Medal). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, its not a war stopper. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * do we know what the cause of Charlesworth's death was? If not, its no drama;
 * 'Fraid not, ADB usually puts it in but not this time...
 * That's fine, then. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues.


 * 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':
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article looks quite good, I just have a couple of comments that I feel should be addressed before it is promoted. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Passes for GA. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many tks for review, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It looks quite good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)