Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Iven Mackay


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


 * Promoted -MBK004 07:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Iven Giffard Mackay

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another Australian general. I think I have his bio up to an acceptable standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – primarily MoS: Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead requires a serious expansion.
 * I think First World War is preferred over Great War, particularly for the sake of consistency.
 * ✅. (A good example of where consistency leads to inaccuracy...)
 * Single, stand-alone sentences should be attached to paragraphs.
 * I think further information is needed on several of his First World War decorations. For example, it is only stated that he received the Distinguished Service Order, Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George and Croix de guerre, but no information is given on why these were awarded. The AWM contains copies of the recommendations of these awards, so just a brief summary even would suffice, I think.
 * ✅. Added the citations for the CMG and Croix de guerre.
 * Good, but would you be able to re-work these citations into prose? As it currently stands, more than half of the "Western Front" section are lengthy quotes, and this kind of over powers the prose, so I think just writing the actions in prose would be best. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to the Croix de guerre, the capitalisation is inconsistent in the article with both "Croix de guerre" and "Croix de Guerre" present. Also, could you please clarify whether it was the French or Belgian variant?
 * ✅. Typo. Should be Croix de guerre. Added text to let readers know it was the French variant.
 * Unless attached to a name, ranks should not be capitalised in the prose as they are not proper nouns.
 * ✅. Except, for reasons I don't understand, in the info box.
 * If I may be so bold as to quote another: "A good example of where consistency leads to inaccuracy..." ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Emdashes should be unspaced.
 * Non-breaking spaces are required between the end of a word and an ellipse.
 * ✅ How bizarre
 * I know; one of those pesky MoS requirements ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article looks a little bare image-wise, so would you be able to add a few more photographs and images in please?
 * Is the "See also" section really necessary?
 * ✅. No. Removed.
 * I know; one of those pesky MoS requirements ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article looks a little bare image-wise, so would you be able to add a few more photographs and images in please?
 * Is the "See also" section really necessary?
 * ✅. No. Removed.
 * ✅. No. Removed.

Comments:
 * Bryce has captured most style points, I particularly endorse the lead expansion and See Also redundancy points.
 * The Early Life & Career section could safely become two decent-sized paras, which would be in keeping with the general para size in the rest of the article body.
 * I'll try and do a ce and source-check pass in the next couple of days. In the meantime, great to see you back on the Australian Army bios, Hawkeye... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try and do a ce and source-check pass in the next couple of days. In the meantime, great to see you back on the Australian Army bios, Hawkeye... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Support
 * The Western Front section is extremely choppy to read, because of the way the paragraphs and quotes are broken up. Can the paragraph be combined more to make it flow more smoothly?
 * In most places you say he was mentioned in despatches, but at one point in the Western Front section it says he was mentioned in dispatches. Which is correct?
 * ✅. Despatches. "dispatches" is a typo, which my spell checker can't seem to recognise. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In several places I have made the change from "Physics" to "physics". It is not a proper name, just a subject, and so probably shouldn't be capitalized. If you disagree with me, however, feel free to revert.
 * ✅. No, that's fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Libya section, "The victory at Bardia was followed by successes at Tobruk, Derna and Benghazi." Could these last three be linked, either to the specific battles or just the towns?
 * ✅. All part of [[Operation Compass] until I get around to creating new pages for them.
 * It may be because I'm either not a military historian or not an Aussie, but I have no idea what refs 64 and 71 are trying to convey. Could the acronyms be spelled out or more of a context given, please?
 * No. 64 is a reference to a document. NAA=National Archives of Australia ACT=Canberra office A5954=Series A5954 (The Shedden Collection) 266/1=File 266/1 (Higher Army Direction of Operations in New Guinea. General Blamey's Arrival in New Guinea. Lieutenant General Rowell's Return to Australia)
 * ✅. Another admin has handled the second one. Pretty well too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please standardize the spelling to either British or American. There is program (A), but defence (B), and both honor (A) and honour (B).
 * ✅. The article uses Australian spelling, so program, defence, despatches, honour (but honorary). Anything else is a typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

These comments should all be fairly easy to take care of; I look forward to supporting this article's move to A-class in the near future! Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response, and I've added my support. The only thing left above would be the choppiness of the Western Front section, and that's not a huge thing, and possibly more of a preference thing on my part. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have gone over this section again in an attempt to smooth it out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I believe this article meets the A class criteria. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with few comments:
 * Please avoid sandwiching text between images such as in Between the wars section.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider adding some references in the infobox, especially in the nickname, commands and awards labels.
 * Everything is in the text and I'd prefer not to clutter the info box with references if I can avoid it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref #2: source description should be placed in the Bibliography section while the note should remain as the other, author and page number.
 * ✅. Moved Jeff's bio ref. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On 28 August 1944 Mackay once again assumed command of New Guinea Force. This time, important operations were being undertaken in the Battle of Finschhafen and Mackay's period of command was marred by disagreements with General Douglas MacArthur's staff over the reinforcement of Finschhafen. - such sentences need a reference even if you duplicate the one already existent at the end of the paragraph.
 * ✅ Coates' book is the best reference about this incident. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Same for the first paragraph of the Post war section.
 * ✅. I have no idea why that would be controversial though... I hope we have the right sentence! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall a good article meeting all A-class criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.
 * Perhaps Ottoman would be better to use than Turk.
 * Butting in - technically yes, perhaps, but conventionally they were always known as Turks, I believe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, the Ottomans are the ruling class of Turks, so Ottoman would be inappropriate here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch image sandwiching in the Between the Wars section.
 * ✅ Removed a photograph to avoid this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement about the mistaken obituary is rather out of the blue where it is, both chronologically and topically. Perhaps it can be moved somewhere else?
 * ✅ Moved it slightly. It's in the right spot, chronologically at least. Added a little bit more to explain why it was important. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good, just some stylistic issues I took care of and those comments above. – Joe   N  22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Performed a relatively light copyedit but generally this looks very good and sources/citing seem well up to speed. I tend to agree about the image sandwiching but on the other hand I can't see where else these pics could go if we retain them - if this goes to FAC some may recommend dropping them as less-than-vital, and it is a bit unusual to see pics of the subject's children in a WP bio but personally I welcome it since they're available. I'm also not sure we really needed links to each of his papers at the end but since it's done, by all means leave them.  All up, another fine addition to your pantheon of Australian generals... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that they are available, his POW son and son-in-law seem to have influenced Mackay's attitudes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Final comments before support: Support Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The caption for File:6th Division Staff 1940 AWM019443.jpg is presented rather poorly, being unnecessarily spread out with dot points. I changed the caption to a more logical format, but this appears to have been reverted.
 * I think the list of stuff relating to Mackay in the AWM's online collections is a little over kill. I can understand the inclusion of some, but some are just highly trivial, such as the whistle and watch, but also a few to many images. For example, a few of the photographic files here are included in the article. I think only the papers are really relevant here, and possibly one or two other things that you think are necessary should be included and the others removed.
 * ✅ Reduced to papers and portraits.
 * There is some inconsistency with the capitalisation of "Mentioned in Despatches", with some presented in the mentioned format and others as "mentioned in despatches".
 * There's no mixed case ones. In the text it is lower case, in the Infobox, upper; then some editor added headings to the Gazette references, so these are upper case. Let me know how you think it should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry; that was a typo. There are "Mentioned in Despatches" and "mentioned in despatches". It doesn't really bother me either way, just consistency is best. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. All uppercase now. You might want to avoid looking at the article Mentioned in Despatches though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, Gawd! Burn it ... ! Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, Gawd! Burn it ... ! Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think all of my comments have now been addressed, and I'm appy to support this excellent article. Well done, Hawkeye, and it's great to see you back at this again. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.