Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Price Weir/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2015.

Stanley Price Weir

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first commanding officer of the 10th Battalion of the 1st Australian Imperial Force, the first battalion of that force raised wholly from South Australia. He commanded the battalion at the Landing at ANZAC, at the Battles of Pozières and Mouquet Farm, and only requested relief when he was one of the oldest commanding officers of the original Australian force. He was relieved at the age of 50, and returned to South Australia to lead the public service before retiring as a brigadier general. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 *  Comment/Weak oppose  I'm a bit uncomfortable with documentation of the lead image:
 * The fact that it is cropped from the original is not mentioned, nor is the original source uploaded and linked to. Indeed, given CSS image crop, I'm not quite sure we need an uploaded cropped image in the first place. A CSS-cropped image has the advantage of directly linking to the full image. That, however, is a highly technical solution, so having a crop is fine, but not an undocumented, "secret" crop.
 * It seems strange to crop it, quite tightly, no less then immediately surround it with copious white space. A more generous crop would make the infobox look far less strange.
 * The other two images are fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

G'day,, could you have a look at the licensing I've used and tell me if it ok? Once it is renamed, I will replace the pic in the infobox. Thanks for your help here! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Uploaded an uncropped original. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, that deals with that. Image check passed. Thank you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually.. hold that for one moment. Let me check something: Australian photographs prior to 1955 are out of copyright, and he died in 1944, right? So what's preventing use of the rather more detailed image at http://discoveringanzacs.naa.gov.au/browse/person/355598 ? It's a nice, big image, and I honestly can't figure out any way it could be in copyright barring some strange rule. you see any issue with that being PD-Australia / PD-1996? For that matter, any reason we couldn't grab his official record from the same link? The Governmental copyright expired 50 years after its creation, and, as Price died in 1944, his copyright expired in 1995 - (see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory and the section below - the increase to 70 years was not retrospective) so URAA is perfectly fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for confirmation from Crisco before substituting. Cheers for the find! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day do you have a view? Just wanted to check before actioning the above suggestion. Thanks, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't receive the ping last time. Adam's right: Australian copyright for photographs taken before 1955 does not require a publication before 1955. That the images were (obviously) created in 1944 or earlier means all photographs of the individual are free under Australian copyright laws. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chris! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox pic replaced with the one suggested above, using PD-AustPD-URAA licenses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments  -- just a placeholder for now, I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and plan to recuse my coord duties and look it over here, but would like to give others a chance first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Rather than check changes since I lasted edited/reviewed at ACR, I looked at the article afresh from top to bottom, and just tweaked the odd thing. I think it's only improved since ACR and am happy to support.
 * The only minor thing I'd raise is that, although the new infobox portrait is excellent, the original picture was interesting in its own way and I'm a bit sorry to lose it entirely -- I wonder if it could fit under the Westert Front heading, though I realise that's not strictly chronological. Just a thought. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * How are you ordering References?
 * The Advertiser ref needs some format changes - the publication title is not the author, and the first parenthetical should be omitted
 * Similarly, AWM cannot be all three of author, work, and publisher - it's definitely not author, so pick one of the latter two
 * ADB is the work not the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki, I'm on it. Will ping when done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * all done I think... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: I reviewed this at ACR and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I made a few additions, though, so please check that you are happy with these and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All good. Thanks, Rupert! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * I was a little unsure about this: "making him the first South Australian to be commissioned in the AIF. He was also made an honorary colonel..." Specifically I'm confused by the honorary colonel part. Does this refer to the honorary colonel appointment he received for the 10th Battalion post war which you mention later in the article also? Given that this info appears in a paragraph starting with "On 12 August 1914" I tend to interpret the paragraph as saying the honorary colonel appointment occurred around this time also and therefore that it relates to something other than the 1921 appointment but I'm unsure and couldn't really envision why or how this would occur (honorary colonel of the battalion at the same time he was also its CO, was that common or even possible? I guess he could have been honorary colonel of the AIF unit in 1914, and then in 1921 the CMF unit which carried on the lineage of that unit so perhaps it does make sense). I'll admit I'm no expert on how this system worked at the time (and the lineage of the Australian Army at this time is also fairly confusing), but it just doesn't sound right to me and I wonder if it is actually referring to the 1921 appointment instead and that its just the proximity to the statement about 1914 and its appearance in the World War I section that is making it sound like it occurred then (to me). If that is the case I would suggest only mentioning it once (retain the later instance for chronology would probably be best). At any rate could this pls be clarified (at least here)?
 * I admit it is a bit quizzical. Lock says "He immediately accepted same (command of the 10th Bn), and on August 17, 1914, was appointed a lieutenant colonel in the A.I.F., and subsequently was made an honorary colonel." Now, I take this to mean that he was an honorary colonel in the CMF while serving as a lieutenant colonel in the AIF. I think this implies he could not hold a substantive position in both forces at the same time, but retained the level of his former substantive rank in the CMF (on an honorary basis) while serving in the AIF. Given he returned to the CMF as a colonel, that sort of makes sense. The Honorary Colonel of the 10th Battalion is the position we are familiar with, almost like a patron. My thinking is that the earlier "honorary colonel" was a rank only, not a formal position in a regiment or unit. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the ADB volume should be included in the citation (i.e. volume 12) and the location of publication? Come to think of it I'd even suggest using the template for this one but its obviously a judgement call (suggestion only - up to you, I can see why you have made the choice of cite web etc here).
 * Volume and loc added.
 * This caption seems a bit "wooden" or "rigid" as a result of using his full name: "The grave of Stanley Price Weir at West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide, South Australia." Might the same not be achieved with something like: "Weir's grave at West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide, South Australia..."?
 * Good suggestion. Done.
 * Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * have adopted the suggestions, and tried to address the query. Interested in a better way to explain the honorary colonel, Honorary Colonel dealio. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday, your thinking may well be correct (i.e. LTCOL in the AIF, but retained his rank of full COL in the CMF) so not what we understand by the term "Honorary Colonel" (i.e. position of patronage). If there is a source which says it in those terms I'd ditch the term "honorary colonel" in the first instance and word it like that. If there is no source and the only one you have uses "honorary colonel" I'd almost consider just deleting it altogether as it is a loaded term that seems to be being misused by the source. Its a minor point though so I'm happy to leave it up to you. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is now addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this PM (and AR), that looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this one is very close to being over the line. Can I have approval to nominate a new FAC while the wheels turn? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I'd always planned to recuse and review here (and have done now) I'll leave this to Andy or Graham. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.