Talk:Tom Derrick/GA1

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

1. Well-written: 2. Factually accurate and verifiable: 3. Broad in its coverage: 4. Neutral: 5. Stable: 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * 'A keen sportsman, he lost his job as the Great Depression grew worse and moved to Berri, where he found a job on a fruit farm' - Could this be changed, possibly omit the sporting reference? The way it reads now it's as if he lost a sporting job
 * I would have liked to have kept that personal touch in there but could think of no proper way of doing so, so I have removed it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'They entered the city itself on 9 April 1941, and spent the proceeding eight months' - Replace proceeding with next, as it seems slightly awkward as it is?
 * Replaced with "following". Is that okay? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'In the initial assault, Derrick, against a barrage of grenades' - who's grenades? British or German?
 * Clarified they were German. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'As the German infantry following the tanks came forward, Derrick's A Company' - I think we can remove the 'A', as it makes it look slightly awkward, and loses nothing if removed.
 * Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'He then had the driver reverse up to each post so as Derrick could ensure each position was silenced' - Don't need to repeat his name here when it was used in the previous sentence, just replace with 'he'
 * Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'during which time the demoralised Japanese defenders had fled their positions to the buildings of Sattelberg' - 'Fled from their positions'
 * Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'They entered the city itself on 9 April 1941, and spent the proceeding eight months' - Do we know why not?
 * Umm, why not what? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'In late May, Derrick discovered a German posing as a British tank officer and reported him to company headquarters; the man was subsequently taken into custody as a spy.' - Since this quite the achievement but also not the norm, adding another citation here couldn't hurt.
 * Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'The members of the 2/48th Battalion who witnessed Derrick's action were sure he would be awarded the Victoria Cross, however no recommendation was made'- As the first comment, do we know why not?
 * I actually have no idea. A few sources mention he performed gallantly and possibly should have received a VC, by only one goes into detail and none state why no recommendation was made. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The most likely reason appears in the next sentence. Because all the 2/48th's officers were killed or wounded, there was no one to write it up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Admitted to hospital with injuries to his right eye later the same day' - How did he receive the injuries?
 * This isn't specified either. This snippet came from his service record, and all that is stated is that he was wounded in the eye and admitted to hospital. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'They printed a leaflet which began "We lament over the death of Lieutenant General Terick CinC of Allied Force in Tarakan" and later included the question "what do you think of the death in action of your Commander in Chief ...?"' - Did the Japanese just get his rank and name wildly wrong here? More of a query than a question, really, to make sure it's correct.
 * This came from one of Nick-D's sources, but I'd say it was highly likely. Derrick was widely known and revered by both his fellow soldiers and also by the public. It could have been the case that the Japanese intelligence was slightly off, and they thought it to be correct as why would one morn the death of a lowly lieutenant? This is my assumption based on the Japanese system of honour and social hierarchy. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter Stanley says that the Japanese got their information second hand from Indonesian sources. An original leaflet is in the War Memorial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Passes
 * Passes
 * passes
 * All images are fine

An excellent, well-written article, up to your usual standards. Get those points sorted I've highlighted above and I'll be happy to pass it. Skinny87 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks heaps for the review, mate, I appreciate it. I think I have addressed all of the above, and it is now over to you. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, everything seems cleared up to me, so I'll pass this now. Good job! Skinny87 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)