Talk:Alfred Shout/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Section 1; para 1; Does "newly raised Border Horse" has an article? If so, please link it.
 * Unfortunately, no. There appears to be very little information about the Border Horse.
 * Section 1; para 1; It is better to link the entire "Bethune's Mounted Infantry" to "Edward Cecil Bethune", as his infantry is in context not just Bethune. Also add a footnote to this stating that that it was a regiment raised and led by Bethune, or something similar. This is needed because it is not as all other regular regiments.
 * I feel linking the whole phrase to Edward Cecil Bethune may impinge on WP:EASTEREGG. It was also not uncommon for individuals to raise (and finance) units during this period, which is also mentioned in the Bethune article so not sure the footnote is necessary.
 * Section 1; para 1; "unit's No. 1 Company" may be replaced by "unit's 1st Company", as generally referred for military formations.
 * The designation used in this article is the same as in the source(s).
 * Section 1; para 1; "an" to be removed from "In an action at Thabaksberg"
 * Removing the "an" would make this grammatically awkward, I think. As this was not a specific battle, but rather an engagement at Thabaksberg, the article is needed for clarification.
 * Section 1; para 2; sentence 1; Revise the use of commas at "discharge and, in 1903, enlisted", I think it is to be "discharge, and in 1903, enlisted"
 * Respectfully disagree here. In this case, "in 1903" is a separate clause used for clarification.
 * Section 1; para 2; Consider revising "had daughter Florence Agnes Maud" to "had a daughter named Florence Agnes Maud"
 * Done.
 * Sections 1&2; It is mentioned that "Shout was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the CMF on 16 June 1914" but in the next section it is mentioned that "Shout enlisted in the recently raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 27 August 1914". These two occurred in the same year. Did Shout leave the former (CMF)? Or did he enlist in AIF as well as continued in CMF, if so, mention it clearly in a footnote.
 * The CMF was the part-time reserves of the time, which could not legally serve overseas in times of war. The AIF was raised specifically for service in the First World War. So, Shout was commissioned in the CMF just before the outbreak of war, then afterwards applied to join the AIF for service overseas. Have clarified this slightly.
 * Section 2; para 1; In the first sentence it is mentioned that he was enlisted, but in the later sentence it was mentioned that he was posted as a "second lieutenant", but that is commissioned rank, not an enlisted one.
 * As above, Shout had to enlist in the AIF, and was granted a commission (having already been commissioned in the CMF).
 * Section 2; para 1; Does an article exists for "HMAT Afric"?
 * No, unfortunately.
 * Section 2.1.1; para 1; Please add notes to the times (11:00, 16:30 etc.), whether they are per UTC or some other? If so what is it
 * The times given are local.
 * Section 2.1.1; para 1; Link to "HMHS Gascon" to "List of hospitals and hospital ships of the Royal Navy"
 * Can do if you feel necessary, but not sure such a link really adds to one's understanding in this case?
 * Section 2.1.1; para 3; Remove the dup-link of "mentioned in the despatch", it was first mentioned para 1 of 1st section.
 * As they are worded a little different, I have retained the link in the second case. Can remove if you feel strongly, though.
 * All fine with section 3
 * Per MOS:DATERANGE, the ranges in the infobox must have full ranges. For example, not "1900–15", but "1900–1915".
 * Done.
 * Can the following image be added to the article, File:Alfred Shout medal group.jpg.
 * This image already appears under the "Victoria Cross and legacy" section.
 * The article was very well written and is almost flawless, just a few suggestions to avoid confusion to a general reader. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. It is most appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: