Talk:John Wilton (general)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 12:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: 5 dab links :
 * Robert O'Neill
 * Joint Intelligence Organisation


 * Reginald Pollard
 * Grafton
 * Grafton High School
 * Linkrot: no dead links (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: images all have alt text (no action req'd).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).
 * Got those dabs, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "...departments for the Army, Navy and Air Force" - I wonder if more appropriate links here would be to Department of the Army (Australia), Department of the Navy (Australia) and Department of Air (Australia), rather than to the individual services? (suggestion only).
 * Great suggestion, when I wrote the initial draft of this (more on that later) those articles didn't exist!
 * Missing word here? "In the event, 3rd Division..." - should this be "In the event, the 3rd Division..."?
 * Same here "Wilton received much of the credit for 3rd Division's performance."
 * And here "In September 1943, following his service with 3rd Division..."
 * I'd formed the impression somehow that we (I mean Australian military types) referred to them minus the definite article -- if that's not the case I'll be happy to add "the".
 * You are correct in saying that it is fairly common to omit the definite article in service writing (likewise to remove ordinals - i.e. 3 Division); however, I don't believe its technically grammatically correct. It is of cse a very minor point and I'm more than happy to agree to disagree. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Might see how it goes at A/FA... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Battle of the Samichon River is mentioned by name in the lead, but not the text (although you describe it and wikilink it to the Hook). Perhaps it might deserve being explicitly mentioned (suggestion only)
 * Fair point, will see about working it in.
 * Following up, I can't actually see the battle referred to by that name in Horner's bio or other sources I have at hand (which admittedly doesn't include the official history), so I've dropped explicit mention of it for the time being at least, while still linking to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries - those changes look fine to me. Indeed in much of the literature the battle is often referred to as "The Hook" or some variation of this (there were two earlier actions there involving British battalions in 1952 and 1953); however, the battle honour awarded to The Royal Australian Regiment in 1961 was "The Samichon". Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor inconsistency in name of unit. Consider you use "28th Commonwealth Infantry Brigade" and "28th Commonwealth Brigade" (this one is tricky as both variations appear in the sources I have so they may be interchangeable)
 * Will double-check my main sources.
 * Same in my sources, but dropped "Infantry" from the article for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * perhaps wikilink terms like "division", "brigade" and "battalion" as some readers will not understand what they are (or what size etc).
 * Sounds fair -- after all I link flight, squadron, wing and group in my air force articles and I know more about them than the army formations... ;-)
 * I wonder if mentioning who Australian forces were fighting in Vietnam might add some context to lay readers? (you mention the Viet Cong but it is quite late in the section on Vietnam, I would suggest doing so in the first paragraph that covers this). (suggestion only)
 * Again fair enough, will double-check my sources so I hopefully don't confuse VC and NVA at any point.
 * Addition here looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Terminology here "Wilton negotiated with US and South Vietnamese commanders a self-contained operations area...", I'd have used "area of operations", but it is probably a nitpick.
 * That's probably me being too careful about close paraphrasing the source, but I think I'll change it anyway... ;-)
 * Wikilink official history of Australia in the Vietnam War
 * Do you mean to The Official History of Australia's Involvement in Southeast Asian Conflicts 1948–1975?
 * Yes that's the one, I only mention it because you wikilink the Korean War history. Happy either way though. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No that's fine, I will link it, just wanted to make sure there wasn't a subset history on Vietnam! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No MOS issues I could see.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR that I could see.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage mostly seems sufficient to me for GA, although perhaps you might very briefly mention Wilton's role in selecting Nui Dat for 1 ATF's base of operations (this had a significant impact on the way it operated for years to come - some operationally positive given its ability to affect key Viet Cong base areas, and some that proved to complicate security and logistic support given it was separated from 1 ALSG at Vung Tau) (this should not be a lengthy discussion though as that obviously belongs elsewhere - maybe a sentence or even half of one mentioning Nui Dat). There is a bit in McNeill on this, also Albert Palazzo's Australian Military Operations in Vietnam p. 46 (and others). I mention some of these in the altogether way too long article on the Battle of Long Tan (it used to include specific mention of Wilton, however I've had to trim it over the years).
 * Yes, I've become pretty familiar with the perceived pros and cons of Nui Dat writing this article and came to the conclusion that since there were arguments on both sides and it could get detailed I might not mention it, but I'll try to address it briefly.
 * That looks fine to me (although for consistency I'd suggest either using diacritics for Nui Dat or binning them altogether on Vung Tau and Phuoc Tuy - either way just so there is consistent presentation, personally I don't like them but the MOS says either way is fine so I think consistency is probably all that is req'd). Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do, it fooled me because the article name doesn't use them but it does redirect to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The section on the barrier minefield mostly looks good, although I think it needs to be clarified who's decision it ultimately was (i.e. Brigadier Stuart Graham the 1 ATF Comd as the tactical comd on the ground made the decision for its establishment, although it was done with the acquiescence of Comd AFV as well as both Daly and Wilton). I'd suggest mentioning Graham here (there is a bit in Graham's wiki article on this as you might expect - also Greg Lockhart's book The Minefield is good if you need a ref for this).
 * No prob, I still have handy all three volumes of the official history of combat ops in Vietnam, as well as Horner's bio, so I can certainly cite Graham to one of those.
 * Looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Article is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.


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


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


 * 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:
 * Images seem to be free / PD and most have the req'd information / templates.
 * I only wonder if File:Korea AWM044755.jpg needs some sort of PD-US tag? (sorry I'm no expert on images, the policy both confuses and enrages me so pls just check and see if this one is right by your understanding of what is req'd)
 * Actually I think it works best with 1946-55 Australian images to use CC-Zero as we're relying on the AWM's PD declaration -- anyway I'll check, tks.
 * Used PD-author instead, it seems to have done the trick before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for checking this. I'll try to remember this for my own contributions. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, this is a fine article and its great to see this topic being improved to this standard (its a topic I've always wanted to write about but never got around to and never would have so its great you did).
 * Funny you say that as I began working on this off-wiki in 2012, partly as a follow-up to the Scherger article, and partly because I wanted to emulate Bryce Abraham's feat of taking at least one bio from all three services to FAC. Then I put it to one side and seriously considered asking you if you might like to join me to help me get back into it, but a few weeks ago I thought, bugger it, I want to finish it myself, but hopefully have you critique it somewhere along the line (like here)... ;-)
 * There are only a few points above, although many are suggestions. Re Nui Dat and the barrier minefield I think some very minor expansion would be beneficial here but obviously I'm mindful of WP:UNDUE, really I just think these require mentions and little more.
 * Anyway as always I'm happy to discuss anything you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many tks for review, AC, will get onto the points above shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi AC, I think I've addressed pretty well everything, just awaiting responses to my queries re. "the" (number) Division and link to official history of Australia in Vietnam. Please feel free to provide feedback on the changes, especially re. Battle of the Samichon River and Nui Dat. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that the article meets the GA critia so I'm passing now. There are a couple of minor points / suggestions outstanding but they are up to your personal choice whether you wish to implement them. Well done as usual and all the best with taking this further. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, i appreciate it -- ACR next... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)