Talk:Gerald Cuthbert

WP:MilHist Commentary
The article makes for some interesting reading, and the image is a great portrait of the subject. The problems keeping it from B-class are mostly pretty minor and probably easily fixed, I think. Here are some points for improvement: Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Coverage: Pretty clear and straightforward. Did he earn any decorations? Did he distinguish himself in battle somehow? Any good anecdotes? After re-reading what his fellow officers said about him, perhaps not...
 * What does it mean by he was "invalided"? Wounded? Shell shock? Or was this a discrete way of putting him on a convalescent status and getting rid of him?
 * Red links: Try to dispense with as many as possible, unless you're going to write articles on them in the near future.
 * Articles on specific units may never get written, so best to remove the dead links.
 * Perhaps the "Sudan Expedition" should be linked to the Mahdist War.
 * The link to the "German attack on Vimy Ridge" can be shortened to the part Vimy Ridge, which re-directs to Battle of Vimy Ridge.
 * Should the infobox include the "Madhist War", above the Boer War?
 * Structure: The last line should be put in its own section, "Personal Life".


 * "Invalided" meant wounded a small proportion of the time, "ill" about a third of the time, but mostly "sacked" - it was a polite fiction that a general who wasn't living up to expectations was tired, worn out, overworked, etc etc, rather than merely utterly inept. In this case it's clear he wasn't wounded - French explicitly notes someone else was, so presumably he would have done the same for Cuthbert - but we're still left with the ambiguity until I can find something being clear one way or the other! I suspect he was sacked - a lot of brigadiers were suddenly found to be wanting in September 1914 - but I'd need to be more confident about this than I am now to say so. Shimgray | talk | 09:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you Know
Another interesting fact is that the fact in the "Did You Know" is in fact not in the article as it stands, but is adduced from the title of one of the references --Yendor1958 (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's in the infobox, but well-spotted - I think I must have had a line about this in a draft version and forgotten to leave it in the main text. I'll add something just now. Shimgray | talk | 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)