Talk:Fabian Ware/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 11:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, nice work so far with this article. I have the following comments/observations in relation to its GA nomination (happy to discuss anything you don't agree with, or anything you want clarification on): AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC) Criteria
 * traveled --> "travelled"? (if the intention is to use British English)
 * Milner's Kindergarten is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body
 * suggest expanding the lead to fully summarise the article, including maybe a short sentence or two about the subject after the First World War
 * what rank was he when he was appointed to the British Army?
 * I suggest adding dates of promotion, where relevant throughout the text. You might be able to find this information in the London Gazette
 * The original object of the unit was to "search for British wounded and missing in the district which had been overrun by the Germans during the retreat from Mons, and to convey them back to the British lines or to a British base." -- quotes should be attributed in text. For instance, According to X, the original object of the unit was...
 * are all the awards in the infobox referenced in the article? Unless I missed something (which is certainly possible) I couldn't find mention of the Croix de guerre, the Order of the Crown, the Order of the Bath, the Order of St Michael and St George, or the Legion of Honour mentioned. Anything in the infobox needs to be referenced, also, which is usually achieved by mentioning it in the body with a citation there
 * Royal British Commission at the Exposition Universelle of 1900: perhaps clarify where this was (Paris, I think?)
 * In 1905, he was offered the editorship of the Morning Post: I assume he moved back to the UK at this time. Is that correct? It might pay to make this clearer, if covered in a reliable source
 * members of the papers staff: "paper's"
 * "we threw the whole weight of the Morning Post against war with Germany -- I wonder if he ever came to regret this, given that he would have seen first hand the result of this? (If it isn't covered in a reliable source, no worries -- it is really just a random musing)
 * Here's the full paragraph from Milner, maybe you can help me parse out the meaning... ". Although Lord Glenesk knew what he wanted when he appointed Ware, it is less certain that he knew what he had got. He had brought in an outsider to put an ailing business back on its feet, and over the next five ‘erratic but brilliant’ years he found that he had not so much bought himself a ‘new broom’ as a high-jacker, an unruly Milnerian cuckoo in the comfortable old Tory nest, an imperial zealot, Tariff Reformer, and universal conscript-monger, hell-bent on readying Britain and the Empire for a war with Germany that he half feared and half wanted. ‘At the time of the Delcassé incident’ – the first ‘Moroccan Crisis’ of 1905 – he later told Spenser Wilkinson, his influential military correspondent, 'we threw the whole weight of the Morning Post against war with Germany. I am ashamed that I did not understand what we were doing at the time. I now believe that England ought to have fought them then – at any rate she is every month becoming less prepared relatively to Germany to fight her than she was then … It [the Morning Post] should boldly point to the German danger and use the lesson of present events to rub in the immediate necessity of universal military service and the reorganizing of naval matters." Was he then advocating 'against' fighting or for it? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty complex paragraph. I would say that initially he was against it, and used the paper to campaign against war, but he later realised/or thought that an earlier engagement (before World War I) might prevent a larger, costlier war at a time when Britain no longer had some advantage. So potentially a case of choosing the lesser evil. It appears he then advocated for better preparedness (which doesn't mean necessarily campaigning for war, just putting in place the means to fight it from a position of advantage if need be). That is just my interpretation, though; probably not authoritative. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * there is a pretty large gap (in terms of years) in the article in the post war section in regards to his employment until the Second World War. Aside from publishing his book, do we know what he did? Was he demobilised after the war? There are some comments on the article's talk page in this regard that probably should be covered off on
 * what was his rank at the start of the Second World War?
 * do we know what he died from?
 * I think perhaps just old age. The NYTimes in its obituary (pitifully short), writes that "failing health caused him to retire" (in 1948) and he died the following year so presumably it was the same health failing. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, if it doesn't say specifically, maybe just mention that he had suffered poor health for a period leading to his retirement. That would then tie into the sentence where you mention his death. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the text says he died in Barnwood, but the infobox says Amberley. Which is correct? I note that this source says he died at home in Amberley:
 * in read mode, there seems to be some legacy coding displaying above the Authority control box: "|}". Do you know how to fix this?
 * Fatal avenue: a traveller's history of the battlefields of Northern France and Flanders, 1346–1945: probably would be better presented if it used title case capitalisation. For instance " Fatal Avenue: A Traveller's History of the Battlefields of Northern France and Flanders, 1346–1945"
 * as per the above, The Immortal Heritage. An account of the work and policy of the Imperial War Graves Commission during twenty years 1917–1937: title case?
 * Richard Jebb is overlinked in the last paragraph in the Early life section, suggest removing the duplicate link
 * Edward VIII is overlinked in the last paragraph of the First World War section, suggest removing the duplicate link
 * is there an access date for citation # 3?
 * is there an ISBN for the Holmes source?
 * is there a location of publication for the Potter source?
 * G'day, Eddie, are you in a position to address, or respond, to my comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, please be advised that I will leave this review open until next weekend (on or around 12/13 July). If the above comments have not been addressed by then, I will close the review as unsuccessful. The article is in pretty good shape, but needs a little more work to make it a GA, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been no response, so I will close the review now as unsuccessful. Overall, I feel that the article is very close to GA and shouldn't need too much extra work to bring it up to standard. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think I've gotten near everything over the past few days Eddie891 Talk Work 13:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, those changes look good to me, passing now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: ✅


 * a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.