Talk:Charles Blackader/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, reading through, this should make GA without difficulty, I do, however have but a few points, though not all of them are necessarily GA requirements:

lead

I'm not seeing the DOB or middle name cited anywhere

Both are in Who Was Who; the middle name turns up in a few of the formal citations as well. I'd be uncomfortable with citing this in the lede or the infobox (simply because it'd seem messy) but it might be possible to work it into the early life section. Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of using one of the Gazette refs for his full name. I do think the dates of birth and death should have an inline citation. Precisely where it should go is up to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why mention the Hundred Days Offensive if he was no longer in command?

I think it's worth bringing out the idea that his long period training and preparation of the division helped lead to the notable successes it had after he was replaced - not mentioning it is a bit unfair to him, IMO. Looking over the sources again, though, this might need a bit of rewording; I'll poke it around. Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early career

Can we be more specific about his rank when he joined the Army? According to our article, subaltern is a general term, rather like the modern-day Company-grade officer (though for some reason that article is solely about the terms use in the US)

"Subaltern" here is meant as synonymous with "most junior officer"; I've clarified. (I forgot he joined after this was all rationalised in the 1870s) Shimgray | talk |

Are there Gazette refs for the mentions in despatches or the DSO?

Good question. I didn't explicitly look for them, but my search of the Gazette for his name didn't bring them up - possibly OCR issues? Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the use of the absence of the Chief Constable appointment from Who was Who as evidence that he didn't get it—isn't that unpublished synthesis?

Not quite, I think - Who's Who is usually very good at listing official appointments like this, so I think we can take the fact they don't mention it as significant. There's a brief article on John Hall-Dalwood, who seems to have been the person who did get the job in 1907; his Who's Who entry corroborates this. We could cite it, instead, perhaps? Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a start and I'll return to the article in the next day or two to review the rest of it. My commentary is based on this version, for the record. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the rest of it, I don't think there are any new points that need to be addressed. I'll put the review on hold so those two minor points above can be fixed, then I'll be happy to pass it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Everything has now been addressed, so I'm happy to pass this. Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]