Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dudley Clarke


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke

 * Nominator(s): Errant (chat!)

H J Mitchell suggested I nominate this, after it failed to gain consensus at FAC. Clarke is a fun, but important, character from the North Africa campaigns - and oversaw a paradigm shift in how the Allies treated deception (from tactical to strategic thinking). Enjoy! Errant (chat!) 09:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comments : All in all this is excellent, and a really interesting article that I enjoyed reading. I've raised a few things above that could do with being looked at, but nothing that's a real showstopper. I cna't imagine you'll have too much of a problem getting it through A class and FAC. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 *  Clarke switched back to the Artillery... Artillery isn't a proper noun. "RA" might be better.
 * Fixed
 * MI9 isn't exactly a common term and could do with explaining
 * Added a detail
 * established 'A' Force... According to the MoS, we should sue double quotes (")
 * MOS:QUOTEMARKS? I'm not sure it fully applies as Advanced Headquarters 'A' Force is its official name.(??)
 * The lead moves rather abruptly from his retirement to his death nearly 20 years later. Is there anything that could be added to those last few sentences?
 * I fleshed out the whole lead a bit, and this last section I filled some details. But it is a minor part of his biography and not due more than a few sentences IMO :) I tried to emphasis he lived in obscurity for the latter years of his life
 * The boy who would grow up to be "the greatest deceiver of World War 2" sound like editorialising; I suggest moving the quote to somewhere it's directly relevant (it could even go in the lead)
 * Done
 * some time in the late 1800s I'd get rid of the "some time" personally
 * Done
 * Watford is in Hertfordshire even today and I doubt it would have had its "almost-London" commuter village status at the turn of the 20th century
 * Removed London reference
 * shipped out seems rather informal to me
 * Reworded
 * Linking Prime Minister is probably overlinking, and used in that context (rather than as a title), it probably shouldn't be capitalised
 * Done
 * Fortunately Clarke's new commander was impressed "Fortunately" is editorialising
 * Done
 * Clarke travelled to Lisbon on 22 August aiming since this in a new subsection, it might be worth reminding the reader of the year
 * Added year
 * Ditto  Fortunately Clarke was released
 * Done
 * Clarke's run of bad luck continued is that in the source? I'm tempted to say that's editorialising as well
 * It is commented on by the source. I'll check and quote you the section to make sure it's ok.
 * the Madrid episode "incident" might be a less editorial, more formal adjective
 * Done
 * His was one of three ships sunk in the engagement, although he escaped harm and returned to Gibraltar Although I'm loathe to start two consecutive sentences with "Clarke", I'd recommend it here for clarity
 * I named the ship.
 * judged his answers acceptable: I'd be inclined to incorporate the quote into the sentence rather than put if after a colon
 * Done I think
 * organisational headache strikes me as editorialising
 * removed
 * "begging for the whole question of deception machinery in the Command to be reviewed completely afresh during his absence." who are you quoting?
 * Clarke himself, describing the note at a later date. I'll rethink it. --Errant (chat!) 20:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bastion was in full swing during February with Victor Jones busy faking the existence "with" is a lousy connective—suggest "and Victor Jones was..." or something similar; also "faking" is quite a flamboyant adjective
 * "and" wouldn't make any sense there :) but I've reworded. I replaced "faking" with fictional but it doesn't read quite right still. Can't think of a better adjective to describe that sort of activity.
 * Operations should be given their name first—eg "Sentinel" should be (presumably) Operation Sentinel on first mention.
 * Clarke, however, had his mind on other things besides awards and El Alamein. again strikes me as editorialising
 * The source identifies that he was more interested in broader strategy during this period than any of the other things
 * (and therefore bestow the perks of high rank), but this did not faze Clarke, who used his charisma to obtain them anyway. editorialising; also the bit about brigadier not being a general officer rank is fairly obvious (and not much more the case for brigadier than for colonel or any other rank). Soes that sentence need to be there at all?
 * The source explicitly talks about this. I've reworded it to remove the comment about general officer as that isn't important to the point
 * A Mention in Despatches is often a precursor to other awards
 * 99% sure this is from Cruickshanks but I will check. I'm imagining things, removed
 * Why Clarke was mentioned in despatches but A Mention in Despatches (note caps)?
 * No idea ;) good spot.
 * What did he do between the end of the war and retirement?
 * Wrote the official history of 'A' Force, I will put it in
 * Actually, bringing this up was good... I had some facts mixed up! Secton rewritten.
 * his coverage of the Rif rebellion, but never actually wrote it.[6][41] He then took a job at Conservative Central Office makes it sound like he took the job after not writing the book
 * Section rewritten
 * He also served as a director of Securicor for a while. how long is a while? And that sentence seems very abrupt given that doesn't have much relevance to the sentences around it.
 * Reworked it a bit. I have no more info than that one sentence - as with many WW2 notables he slipped back into relative obscurity after the war
 * Could you not think of a more inspired title for that section than "Deception"? "Legacy" perhaps?
 * Switched, I'll mull on something suitable that mentions deception.
 * You use "US Rangers" in the personal life section but "U.S. Rangers in the lead"—it doesn't really matter which you use, just use it consistently
 * Good catch
 * To me at least, amused himself has connotations beyond swimming and sunbathing, but on reflection, do you need that sentence there at all?
 * Yeh its trivial, hangover from some earlier notes.
 * Support. I think all my nitpicks have been addressed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comment: interesting read. I have a few suggestions:
 * the duplicate link checker tool reports a few examples of potentially overlinked terms: Royal Flying Corps, Lisbon, Erwin Rommel, Victor Jones (colonel), Western Front, Crete, Bernard Montgomery, Northwest Passage (film);
 * in the lead, "In the Second World War, Clarke undertook several small jobs, including travelling from Africa to Norway on intelligence missions." Perhaps this might be better if it was qualified, e.g. "Early in the Second World War..."
 * "Clarke joined the Royal Artillery in February 1916 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in November. Following the outbreak of the First World War..." This implies that he joined before the war broke out, although obviously that wasn't the case. Perhaps this might work better, "During the First World War, Clarke joined the Royal Artillery in February 1916 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in November. When his regiment deployed to France, Clarke had to stay behind because, at 17, he was too young to fight."
 * the link to John Dill in the Second World War section should be moved to the Palestine section;
 * "120 strong force" --> "120-strong force";
 * "but referred it's less clandestine MI9" --> "but referred to its less clandestine MI9" (missing word and incorrect apostrophe);
 * inconsistent date format "October 13" v "22 February 1945";
 * "1939 and 1940 (before the middle east posting)" --> "1939 and 1940 (before the Middle East posting)";
 * in the Books section, the 1952 work should probably be presented in title case, rather than sentence case. E.g. "The Eleventh at War: Being the Story of the XIth Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) Through the Years 1934–1945";
 * in the Bibliography, slightly inconsistent punctuation: "Recommendation for Award; Officer" v. "Recommendation for Award: Mention";
 * date format inconsistency: "4 June 1974" v "09 September 1942". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I've fixed up all of those issues :) --Errant (chat!) 14:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've added my support above. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support -- a fascinating character indeed, and a nice article; generally prose, structure, detail, referencing and image licensing look okay, just a few comments:
 * Too many parentheses throughout, IMO, so I've replaced a few instances.
 * You link Dill in the lead and on first mention in the main body, but you only link Wavell in the lead. I'm not fussed which way to do things but it should be consistent (i.e. lead plus first mention in main body, or only in lead)
 * Ernest Chappell, who was also on the beach, said that the patrol had not opened fire.[13][10][14] -- not a major point but generally considered good practice to sort citations numerically, regardless of how they might relate to the order of info in the preceding sentence(s). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your suggestions, edits and support :) I've tweaked the article based on your feedback. Thanks again! --Errant (chat!) 13:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob. BTW, didn't mean to suggest one should never use parentheses (the instances I left looked okay to me), just that one should should be careful about overuse... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe fair enough :) I was working through what you left behind and saw the opportunity for something better, so all good! --Errant (chat!) 14:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.