Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt/archive1


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011.

Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This follows on from Mike Jackson, my first ever FA (this will be my second, all being well). An officer decorated for gallantry early in his career, Dannatt is the most recent British Chief of the General Staff to retire at the time of writing, and the article will hopefully be the second on a CGS to attain featured status. After an A-class review at MilHist (which is pending closure), I'm confident this meets the criteria, but look forward to all comments, pro or con. Thank you. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking, but be consistent in punctuation for Dannatt citations
 * Fixed. --HJ
 * FN 69, 92: is that a typo?
 * Yes, well spotted! --HJ
 * FN 89: Number 10 of what? Is this a series, press releases...? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Number 10 is a metonym for 10 Downing Street. I can link it if you think I should, but I thought the website made it obvious. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I mentioned gender-neutral language during the A-class review, but it's not enough to withhold support over. Far be it from me to lecture on British punctuation, but isn't it "St Lawrence College" in BritEng, usually? That's also the punctuation the school uses. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dannatt appeared in newspaper headlines in October 2006 when he gave an interview for Sarah Sands of the Daily Mail in which he opined that a drawdown of troops from Iraq was necessary in order to allow the Army to focus on Afghanistan&mdash;which papers saw this as an attack on Tony Blair's policies&mdash;as well as advocating for wounded soldiers to recover in a military environment rather than civilian hospitals.": This might work better as two sentences, and I don't think it works to say "which papers" when you didn't say which papers you mean. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. Although I'm all for gender-neutral language normally, I'm not so much of fan when it risks mucking my sentence structure. ;) As for St/St. Lawrence, I went by the spelling of our article's title, I didn't realise that was another Brits vs. Yanks thing! I've split the sentences, though, and I think it reads much better now. Thanks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Check - It looks good.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  20:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Comment - The lead section of the article is rather long. WP:LEAD only specifies the number of paragraphs – but in this article the paragraphs are substantial. Only the main points need to be mentioned. Aa77zz (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We really need more people reviewing Milhist articles, so thanks. There are 3 or 4 reviewers who occasionally give us specific goals for the lead, so rather than respond immediately, I'd like to see what other reviewers say ... hopefully everyone will go home happy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the lead section could be improved, shorter would be better. I am reviewing the article in the next few days. I like it so far.  Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed about some of the detail from the lead, and I look forward to any comments you have. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, excellent article. I have one last recommendation, a list of titles and honours (including the title of Baron Dannatt) in the end of the article could help readers. Examples: David Petraeus and General Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. I generally avoid titles and honours sections because the honours are all mentioned in the prose (and the important ones are in the infobox). I don't see much encyclopaedic value in listing them in their own section, and in fact tend to remove those sections if they're present in articles I'm working on. It's worth noting that Mike Jackson, the only other FA (so far) on a British CGS doesn't have such a section. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully agree HJ, I do the same. Aside from being redundant, when inclusive of (gasp) the award ribbon images, such sections make the article look to me like a page from a children's book... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't even get that with British articles—Crown Copyright! Makes it bloody difficult to find free images for biographies! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, I also think this is an excellent article, well written with all the key facts. Dormskirk (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Support Comment  -- reviewed and copyedited at MilHist ACR and supported then. Having been through the relatively minor changes in the article since, I'm ready to support here pending spotchecks, which I can't do myself at present. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if anybody fancies doing a spotcheck, I can promise it won't take long—I've dotted my "I"s and crossed my "T"s. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to offer full support following below exchange -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks of 7 sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Returning to Staff College, Camberley, Dannatt took the Higher Command and Staff Course (HCSC)" - not in cited source
 * "The government took the unusual decision to extend the tenure of Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) rather than promote one of the outgoing service chiefs and so all three, including Dannatt, retired" - source agrees that Dannatt retired but doesn't mention the unusual decision or the fate of the other two service chiefs AFAICS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikki. Both of those were in the citation at the end of the sentence/paragraph, but I admit that was unclear with another ref in the middle of the sentence. I've sorted both. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know British naming conventions: should Baron Dannatt be a redlink?
 * Lord Dannatt would be a more likely search term, since that's how one would properly address him, but since both are red and Sir Mike Jackson is a redirect, I'll redirect both. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * I am not sure why "operation" is singular here-- military lingo?
 * ... he became involved in planning for subsequent operation ...
 * I think that's a typo. --HJ
 * Is the second use of "mistaken" repetitive, redundant, understood? Not sure ...
 * ... after his name was mistaken for a girl's, leading to him being mistakenly invited to a birthday party where he was the only boy.
 * Ew, horrible prose. I've re-written the sentence. --HJ
 * Punctuation (colon?)??
 * They had four children, three boys and one girl.
 * Makes it seem like they had four children *and also* three boys and one girl? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Replaced the comma with an emdash for clarity (I dislike using colons in prose for some reason, but if you feel it's better, I'll use a colon). Thanks for the feedback. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes: I pooped out last night and will continue today. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.