Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sydney Rowell


 * 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.

Sydney Rowell

 * Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to try the procedure with a more controversial page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * References comments with random assorted shots as well - (this version)
 * The lead seems rather short.
 * ✅ Inserted longer lead


 * Ref two: "The Army List of Officers of the Australian Military Forces, 1946" - where is this in the "references" section/what is it?
 * ✅ Added it to the references


 * Ref Seven: should be able to have a publisher, right? (just the Aussie gov't?)
 * The Roll of Honour? No, it's not a published document. But it can be viewed online, or in hard copy at the War Memorial
 * Can a link be added here? Or does this go through RecordSearch too? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are the London Gazette references formatted differently, or it that just me?
 * They are all generated from the same template. But some citations are in what is called the "Supplement".
 * As I have no idea if these count as being "consistent", I'll let this go and let FAC deal with it. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What are refs 55–59?
 * Documents. Probably fall under the category of "if you don't know you don't need to". Military historians have certain standards for referring to documents.
 * NAA (ACT) A5954 266/1
 * NAA - National Archives of Australia
 * ACT - Held by the ACT office, in Canberra
 * A5954 - Series A5954 Which is the "The Shedden Collection" - Records collected by Sir Frederick Shedden during his career with the Department of Defence and in researching the history of Australian Defence Policy
 * 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."
 * The title and date allows you to locate the document within the file.
 * The description given gives you all you need to view it at the National Archives, or order a copy made, or view it online. It is available online.
 * Can you add in (a) link(s) then? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately. You have to go through RecordSearch. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; striking. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources look good, links checked out with the checklinks tool.
 * You have 4 disambigs in the article that should be corrected.

— Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - all comments have been addressed. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a great article, well-constructed and with an engaging style. A few minor comments:
 * While I don't personally object to it, I don't think we generally include quals such as idc and psc after the subject name in the opening line.
 * I just copied it from the Army List Hawkeye7 (talk)


 * Starting sentences with "But" seems very American for an Australian-themed article - could we pls have "However" or something else...?!
 * ✅I've noticede that people in New South Wales like to end their sentences with "but".


 * My understanding is that ship names are formatted as HMAT Thirty-Six, not HMAT Thirty-Six.


 * "bizarre twist of fate" is a bit peacockish - if the cited source uses similarly colourful language, perhaps it'd be better to quote from it.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Slightly more serious - though not sufficient to make my support conditional on it - is whether there may be too much reliance on Rowell's own book as a source. The reason I don't think it's too bad a thing is that the article doesn't seem hagiographic, which would've been a risk when relying so much on the subject's own writing. However if the citations could be a little more evenly distributed among the refs I think it'd be a good thing.


 * 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.