Talk:Thompson Capper

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Very good article. The Rambling Man 11:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Capper's death at the Battle of Loos
I understand there is some disagreement about the circumstances of Capper's death. I had heard that he was shot by a sniper while in a captured communication trench, but that his aorta was punctured leading to almost instant death, rather than dying next day from a wound to the lungs. His body was carried back by his ADC. However there are other accounts. I am not an expert on this topic - I am in fact researching a Rifleman in 1/KRRC who were also involved in the attacks on The Quarries during which Capper fell. Much pertinent discussion is available on the Great War Forum ( www.1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/) if you run a search on "Capper". There you will find a lot of detailed references to the source material. I recommend another contributor research this more thoroughly. Cheers, Mark Brockway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.159.169 (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I realise that it wasn't very long ago it recieved its listing, but for completeness I have reassessed it anyway. I have made a couple of minor copyedits, and the comment above concerning the facts of Capper's death would be worth following up, but I believe the article still meets GA criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 13:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)