Talk:John Gellibrand/GA1

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is in very good shape. A few nitpicks:
 * There are a few duplicate links, Denison, Australian Army and major general in the lead, and Blamey in the penultimate paragraph of the body.
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All images are from the collection of the AWM and are PD in Australia. File:1st Division Staff.jpg, File:Group portrait of officers at the British Army Staff College, Camberley, 1906.jpg, File:Gellibrand at Pozieres.jpg, File:Group portrait of the officers of the 12th Brigade staff.jpg and File:John Gellibrand 2.jpg all need a US PD tag as well as the Australian one.
 * This still needs to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe haemorrhage is the correct spelling
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any more on his divisional command? The article gives the impression that he was a highly competent commander up to brigade level, and a competent staff officer at divisional level, but struggled with command at divisional level? Is there a source for such an overall assessment? Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea? The lead should probably reflect any overall assessment.
 * If I had one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mallett's bio of Gellibrand has a quote from Monash that might be a good way of summarising his performance, also, that link goes to the general page, not to Gellibrand himself
 * ✅ Corrected the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The ADB entry states that his request for a move from 6th Infantry Brigade was caused by "misunderstandings between himself and the staff of the 2nd Division", and that Birdwood unsuccessfully tried to resolve them. This should probably be reflected in the article.
 * I think Palladin should be Paladin.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)