Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francis Harvey


 * 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 03:55, 27 December 2007.

Francis Harvey
Self-nominated article on posthumous First World War Royal Marines Victoria Cross recipient. Is a GA and has been peer reviewed. All comments welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. Aren't there any plaques or such dedicated to him? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I expected there would be too, but I had a search online (where there is a databse of memorials) and couldn't find any. If anyone turns one up then please add it to the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems strongly lacking in references/citations, "Harvey's guns again caused devastation" - isn't this a bit too POVish "encyclopedia Britannica" tone? - - rather common in the article. - this guy is a hero isn't he? --Keer lls ton 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  in general it's nicely written, pretty, but...
 * To address your issues one at a time, a) If you think something is uncited then please add a tag to that point and I will endeavour to source it. b) What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the article is unencyclopedic in tone? If that's what you mean then please just say so without snide references to "encyclopedia Britannica". Do not make sarcastic comments at FAC, it's rude.


 * I will attempt to edit this so-called "heroism" out of the article, perhaps you could aid me by giving some more examples of it. (FYI, given its context in the article I don't think devastation is inappropriate where it is. Its hardly a heroic adjective and does quite factually describe the effects of his gunnery on both German forces. Nevertheless, perhaps you would prefer "serious damage" instead?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given improved quality Opposition withdrawn.--Kiyarr lls ton 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... as to b) - didn't mean to be snide or sarcastic. - I believe I didn't find how to phrase it properly and therefore phrased my concern improperly... I'm sorry for that.
 * in regards to a) - it is a symptom not the actual problem - it can signify lack of comprehensiveness, verifyability, and work hours put into it.
 * --Kiyarr lls ton 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry too, I was rude myself in my response. Glad you like the article better now. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the authorship and reliability of this source, which appears to be a personal webpage: http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst the host is indeed a personal webpage, the specific part of the page quoted is here. This, as the page states is copied from an unpublished memoir of an officer aboard HMS Lion named Alexander Grant held at the Imperial War Museum. A search here has not yielded results, but as only 65% of documents have been digitised, this means very little. I have contacted the owner of the page to ask if he can provide any proof of provenance, but I think this link is valid as the source is a memoir of a participant, not an opinion piece.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Update, I have recieved an e-mail from the owner of this page who has provided me with the details of this passage. It is indeed from the Imperial War Museum, unedited, and thus qualifies as an acceptable source. Details can be provided if required.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  until the huge sentences are tamed. For example: "Specially requested for HMS Lion, the flagship of the British battlecruiser fleet, Harvey turned her into one of the very best ships for gunnery in the Royal Navy and in her fought at the battles of Heligoland Bight, Dogger Bank and Jutland, during which the guns under his command sank two German cruisers and almost destroyed the German battlecruiser flagship SMS Seydlitz." Why not make it: "... the Royal Navy; in this ship, he fought at ..."? Give the poor readers a chance to take a breathe. If you have to use the female attributive, don't repeat it so shortly after. Also:
 * Have fully copyedited the piece in the hope that this has been removed. Let me know if I've done the job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 13.5"—thought it was a closing quotation mark—13.5-inch guns.✅
 * Q in quotes; Lion's itaclics? Perhaps, but check the logic. I see that Chambers didn't use the quote marks.
 * Little explination here. "Q" is the style used by the London Gazette, whilst Snelling and the other books use a plain Q. Chambers is from Snelling hence Q whilst I originally went with "Q" as per the London Gazette. I have now reveresed this so that Q is used as standard in the article and the only incident of "Q" is in a quote from the London Gazette. As for the italicising of Lion, it is standard both on Wikipedia and elsewhere to italicise the names of ships but not their prefixes (eg HMS). This is following that convention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See MOS on formatting of times: colon, not period.✅
 * Stilted prose: "Turning to his sergeant, the one man still standing, Harvey instructed him to give a full report to Admiral Beatty. Then, the ship saved, Harvey collapsed dead." - Attempted, hopefully this is better now.
 * Pedantry: space after "p." in the notes (inconsistent). ✅

It's worth promoting after another massage. Tony  (talk)  14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for an excellent review, very helpful. I have completely copyedited the article and attempted to address the issues above, if I have missed anything please point it out. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. 13.5-inch gun, as above, has a hyphen. Still not fixed. Use logical punctuation at the end of quotes that start within one of your sentences (period after closing quotes). Apart from that, it's good: well done. Tony   (talk)  04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Harvey, despite severe wounds and burns, realised that the shell hoist leading to the ship's main forward magazine was jammed open[,] and that the flash fire would rapidly travel down it[,] resulting in a main magazine explosion[,] that would tear the ship in two and kill everyone on board." --Kiyarr lls ton 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Query I note abnormally large sentences in section Jutland - I am not sure if they are run-on sentences, but they don't seem very pretty either way - could you tell me if this is improvable or not even a problem?
 * Thankyou, I have attempted to address this by breaking up the long sentances. Hope this has improved the prose.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.