Talk:William Howard Livens/GA1

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

I have written this article over an extended period and think that it has come up rather well. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and I am afraid that I am not prepared to pass the article for GA immediately. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Huge problems. For an ideal picture of how a military biography should look, I recommend checking out William Bostock or other work by the same editor. Notice that the article is presented in clear paragraphs, that give the events described a proper sequence and context. It has a properly developed lead that introduces the man and gives a clear indication of his personality, major events in his life and why he is notable. There are quotes about him and each event in which he is involved is clearly explained so that there is no need to look at other articles for context. Even more importantly, each event is in sequence, unlike this article which leaps forward to 1917 and back to 1916 again. This article has many stubby unconnected sentences which make it almost impossible to clearly read: it looks like the entire article needs to be completely rewritten along these lines before it has any serious chance of making GA. Fortunately, all the information you need seems to be in the article already - you have done the research, now it must be properly presented. Once it has been placed into organised paragraphs I will review the prose again for writing style.


 * While I can appreciate that the article is far from perfect, I must ask you to explain some of your objections. You must understand that the sources for the life of WHL are limited and biographies of him are quite short; I cannot fill gaps, however frustrating they may be, if there are no verifyable sources. There are relatively few quotes published about him, none-the-less there two in the article. Everything is in sequence with an occasional exception for the sake of clarity - discussing the increasing range of the projector for instance - or do you have something else in mind? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've explained myself very well: Although there are rough edges in the prose, the problem is your paragraph structure. The reason I gave you William Bostock as an example was that all of its sentences are connected together into organised paragraphs that present an organised thought. Here, especially in the early life section, the sentences are unconnected. As an example, you have the paragraph "Father and son had a close relationship and collaborated on many projects." Firstly, what projects? Secondly, this would be better joined to the previous paragraph to develop Livens' relationship with his father. This is the example of a problem that recurrs throughout the article, when unconnected sentences appear without context.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I have done a lot to improve things. There is more to do. I'd appreciate any specific suggestions if you have them. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * I can see a couple of places where citations are essential (again, I'll wait for the rewrite before pointing out where). Also, when giving page numbers use p. X or pp. X-XX


 * Changing the style of the page numbers is not a problem. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please identify places where you feel extra citations are needed. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * Background has to be reworked: describe as much of his childhood as you can, what did he study at Cambridge? Why was an engineer writing for Country Life?


 * Unfortunately, the available sources, which are really quite limited, are quite silent on these matters. The article simply states the known facts without adding any speculation. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will leave judgement on this until the other problems are dealt with, but this may result in the article failing until more sources can be located.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain the Lusitania thing more clearly: if the story is erroneous then say so (in fact, the entire bit is better explained in a footnote, as is the explanation about the discrepancies in his given rank).


 * I thought that the "Lusitania thing" was quite clear. There is no way to know for sure that it is erroneous, although, as explained in some detail, it probably is. The discrepancies in rank might do well in footnote, but it is so common in references to WHL that I thought it worth explaining with some prominance.


 * It's not clear at all. It seems a relatively simple thing (historically speaking) to establish whether or not Livens was married before 1915 and whether his wife actually died on the Lusitania. This is not a small problem: the death of his wife in such circumstances must have had a major effect on him if true and yet this effect is not described. If false, then where on earth did such a rumour come from? You also introduce it by saying that his wife may have died on the Lusitania but have not previously mentioned that he was married.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I hope that I have made that episode clearer. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to come to this late, but my understanding is that the date of the marriage is not the point. The story as I heard it was that she was his fiancee when Livens thought she was on the Lusitania; accordingly, the date of the marriage has no bearing on Livens' desire to kill Germans.Iain1917 (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * More about his family.
 * More about the 20 years after World War II


 * Again, the source material simply is not available. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


 * Quite a bit of WP:PEACOCK material, although this is probably the result of the poor writing than a deliberate attempt at bias.


 * Oh dear! Can you indicate an example please? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On a second look, it seems that I was overly harsh in my judgement on this issue: the "peacock" terms were either less biased on a second reading or backed up by sources. Sorry.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is stable.
 * 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):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

 * Molotov cocktail was not a term in use in 1916 for obvious reasons: its use here is an anachronism.


 * Possibly it is anachronistic, but it is the term used in the source. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If its from a source then use it in a quote, otherwise it is an anachronism.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have re-written that paragraph to avoid reference to molotov cocktail. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your wikilinks are all over the place: link a proper noun or technical term the first time it appears only.


 * It really does not seem over-linked to me. Can you give some examples? Gaius Cornelius (talk)


 * Overlinking is not the problem, the problem is the way you have linked things. For example, the Battle of the Somme should be linked as soon as you start talking about it


 * "the cost of killing Germans could be reduced to sixteen shillings each." - what does this mean?


 * I suppose that I should not take it for granted that the reader knows what a shilling is. I'll fix that. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what a shilling is, what I don't know is what the quote means: how would Livens' invention make it cheaper to kill Germans? This is what I mean above about a lack of context.


 * Give the citation for his military cross, in sequence and in context, so its clear why he was awarded it.


 * There are no citations published, but I will add some explanatory text. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was thinking of the official citation, normally published in the London Gazette (as in John Brunt). It appears however that Livens' citation wasn't published (at least not there) so disregard this for now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since it appears that there is no more information forthcoming on his life, particularly for the period after World War II, I cannot pass this article at this time. Thankyou for your work on the article so far and good luck in the future. If you feel this desicion is in anyway unfair, please feel free to appeal at WP:GAR.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate being prodded into improving the article. However, the reviewer has taken no interest in the article's improvement and has dismissed it on unreasonable grounds. The article is a fair summary of the published information about WHL; as happens to so many people, his life outside his profession is obscure and not a matter of public record - and it probably never will be. There is no reason to believe that WHL’s private life is of special interest and even if it was this should not stop his biography from achieving Good Article status – see footnote three of Good article criteria. If this cannot be resolved here, I will appeal the decision. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I did take an interest in the article's improvement: I made a list of required improvements above, some of which were implemented and some of which were not. The article then went for five days without any improvement (and no notification from the nominator that they were unavailable at this time). I therefore concluded that these improvements were not going to be made, as indeed they still have not. I suggest that you take this to GAR for an appeal, because I am not going to pass the article in its current state. At GAR I will explain exactly why I failed the article and hopefully a wider consensus can bring improvements that will help the article reach GA standard. I mean (and meant) no offence in my review and appreciate the already substantial improvements made to the article since the review process began. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jackyd101: Firstly, I am sure that I must seem ungrateful for your time and efforts, and ungracious in my protestations; that is not what I intend and I thank you for your trouble. I must admit that I got too tied up in the business of collecting facts to the neglect of the writing and you are absolutely right to point out such deficiencies. I realise that the article needs more work and I expect that to take a little time. However, I hope you will understand my distressed at the idea that no matter what I do, the article cannot be "Good" if it does not contain certain details that are not available from verifiable sources. Given that this point necessarily applies to all articles, do you think that the general point be discussed in Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria instead of this particular instance at GAR? Thanks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why not and would be happy to participate in such a discussion. I would also like to point you to the GA review on the talk page of John Capper, an article I worked on and which was failed for exactly the reason this article has not passed at this time: such is the required standard. However, further discussion on this would be valuable.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will start off the discussion soon. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)