Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blair Anderson Wark


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008.

Blair Anderson Wark

 * Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Perhaps not the longest of articles, but it is comprehensive and has passed both GA and Wikiproject Military history A-Class. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I think I copyedited this article.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was one thing I should have mentioned above; YellowMonkey and EyeSerene both provided a very valuable copyedit to this article, and I am grateful to them both. Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I passed this for GA, although it was very good then and I didn't really have any comments at the time. My only suggestion now is that I always found it easier to read citations when they were seperated from the text by some kind of box (see Thomas Crisp or Ronald Niel Stuart), however this not a condition of my support, just a suggestion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not a bad idea. However, all of the other VC articles I have worked on I have presented the citation in the same format, and would like to remain consistant with these. Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comments Generally up to the usual high standard. I took the liberty of making a few cosmetic copyedits - a few other points follow. If these can be addressed I wouldn't have a problem supporting this FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Intro: "member of the Australian society" sounds like a club - suggest simply "member of Australian society", or perhaps even the more down-to-earth "member of the community".
 * Changed to "member of Australian society". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit confusing to read that "Throughout June and July, Wark commanded the 32nd Battalion" and then shortly after to find that "From 29 September to 1 October 1918, Wark assumed temporary command of the 32nd Battalion". Presumably June-July was temporary as well? If so, I think you need to either mention that in both places or drop it from both places, otherwise it looks like he had permanent command of the 32nd and then, mysteriously, only temporary command of it.
 * I have now clarified that it was temporary command on both occasions. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we look at some paraphrasing of source material? For instance in the article we're told that the 32nd "was subsequently involved in the operations that continued to press the retreating Germans through August and into September", a straight lift from a passage in the cited work. As I've noted on a previous occasion, it's not always easy when the source articles are of a similar level of detail to what we're presenting here, but we can try and be a bit more original in our wording. "...tasked with providing carrying parties for supplies and ammunition, the battalion was soon drawn into combat" is also very close; while you've thankfully substituted "combat" for the source's "vicious fighting", the rest is the same and could be rephrased as well. Obviously I can't speak for possible close similarities between the article and the book sources.
 * Geez, I can't believe how lazy I was sometimes in my earlier articles. In the first instance I have quoted the material, and in the second I have changed it to "The unit was originally designated with providing carrying parties for supplies and ammunition during the battle, but were subsequently drawn into the fighting.". Is that okay? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments and the copyedit, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob, I changed one more verb that stuck out for me in the second bit, plus modified what I saw as a couple of instances of singular/collective confusion re. the battalion. Hope they work for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a look at your changes I have no objections. Once again, thanks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - as hard as I tried, I could find little in the article to fault. The prose is generally very good, and the article is comprehensive, as far as I can tell. Well done. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Everything looks good. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, Jon. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review &mdash; all images check out fine (sources, date, authorship, license). Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.