Jump to content

Talk:Gordon Bennett (general)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Progression

[edit]
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • Spelling here - "follow up" probably should be "follow-up" (I think).
  • This caption is a bit "wooden" and could probably be worded away from the AWM caption to make it suit the article a bit more (it is written in a fairly long winded manner too which could be avoided by much of the context the caption is trying to provide is already supported by the article around it) - "Malaya. January 1942. Informal portrait of Major General Gordon Bennett, General Officer Commanding Australian Army Forces in Malaya, during a pause in his briefing of war correspondents (not seen)".
  • I'm not sure this is effective: "the Australian version of the Home Guard", maybe something like "similar to the British Home Guard", or even "the Australian version of the British Home Guard" would provide more context to the reader without having to click on the link?
  • I wonder if some (very brief) mention of the emergence of the Singapore strategy in the 1920s (and what it was) and its subsequent effect on interwar Defence policy might help provide context. [Perhaps see Australian Army during World War II for something along the lines of what I was thinking].
  • "In February 1941, the 8th Division's headquarters, along with one of its brigades – the 22nd – was posted to Malaya in February 1941." Why? i.e. concern about the Japanese threat etc.
  • "Bennett's command was not engaged in the initial stages of the fighting..." Why? Perhaps mention British and Indian forces being engaged and pushed back instead etc...
  • "Bennett's escape was initially regarded as praiseworthy." I think even at this time there was some criticism, albeit within military circles (Lodge writes "The response in Australia to Bennett's escape was mixed" for instance). However as the narrative currently reads I get the impression the first criticism was following Percival's letter in 1945. Perhaps very briefly mention the counter opinion to that expressed by Curtin (per Lodge)?
  • Some explicit statement about the significance of the fall of Singapore might benefit readers that are not familiar with the topic - i.e. largest British defeat etc (perhaps maybe add a sentence at the start of the "Postwar inquiries" section)?
  • Bennett's gripe about British and Indian troops in Singapore probably cannot go completely unchallenged and it might need to be clarified that he was also critical of the performance of some Australian forces as well. Equally his opinions reportedly differed considerably from Percival's etc. Whilst I don't think the job of this article is to dissect the fall of Singapore or even to cover which force was alleged to have done / not done what and by whom I think some very brief mention of this might be req'd at least. For instance Callaghan appears to provide a more balanced assessment which might be used here for this purpose (this is covered in Murfett et al, p. 360 - pls see the Battle of Singapore article for what I'm referring to). This doesn't need to be covered in depth, all I'm thinking of is probably a single sentence.
  • The article looks well cited to me but uses a mix of styles (long cites, followed by short cites after first use in a single "references" section). Whilst I think this is probably good enough for GA if you want to take it higher I'd suggest adopting standard short cites for all footnotes in a "notes" section and placing long cites in a "references" sections like you usually use in most of your articles.
  • The external links for the AS official histories were recently moved by the AWM again (without a redirect in place) so they will need to be updated.
  • I'll get to a full review after these initial points have been addressed. Of cse more than happy to discuss anything you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

[edit]
  • Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
  • Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
  • Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • This seems a little redundant: "...to an advanced position on Pine Ridge, south of Lone Pine" (Lone Pine twice), perhaps reword slightly?
    • This is a little unclear - "was isolated and wiped out to the last man...", do you mean "killed"?
    • "but fortunately the commander of the 1st Division...", maybe lose "fortunately" here
    • "Bennett spent Christmas in Southampton" - wikilink Southampton
    • "defending the Suez Canal..." - wikilink Suez Canal
    • "Bennett's battalion HQ" - the abbrev "HQ" needs to be introduced here
    • "they were married in Chelsea" - wikilink Chelsea
    • Repetitive language here "He led the brigade for the remainder of the war on the Western Front, leading" (led and leading, maybe use "commanded" or something similar for one of these)?
    • Wording doesn't seem right here: "He was received the Order of Danilo..." (pls check)
    • "He was offered his old position back..." at the AMP Society I assume? Perhaps clarify?
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The article is sufficiently referenced to WP:RS and seems to reflect the sources available.
    • No issues with OR I could see.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered for GA.
    • There has been quite a bit written on the topic of Bennett's actions in Singapore in a number of other works not used here, however I think that this article covers the literature sufficiently for GA in my opinion, making use of a range of books as well as the official histories, and recent journal articles.
    • "shocked Australians, resulting in the capture of almost 15,000 Australian soldiers..." perhaps mention the number of British and Indian soldiers captured as they formed the bulk of the garrison?
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • Its a controversial subject but there were no issues I could see. All major viewpoints seem to be covered.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues here.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
    • Images mostly seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
    • Captions look fine.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gordon_Bennett_(general)/GA1&oldid=676286861"