Talk:Sidney Mashbir/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Hi, I recall peer reviewing this some time ago so looking forward to assessing for GA. Will aim to get comments to you in next few days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my apologies for taking a while with this -- if you don't get these things in before Xmas/NY madness, it's always a delay. Thanks for your patience...!

I've engaged in a fair bit of copyediting because I think it's quicker than putting straightforward things down here, however I have some queries:

Early service

Is "First Lieutenant of the University Battalion" a position or a rank?

Between the wars

...when he sought reinstatement, discovered that orders had already been cut to reinstate him... -- This doesn't really make sense. He wants to be reinstated, then there's an issue because the Army's already decided to reinstate him? Isn't that what he wanted?
- In brief, he resigned in order to carry out a top-secret mission under the guise of a businessman, that failed as a result of the earthquake, he applied to be reinstated, but an unprinted law was established that a resigned officer could not be reinstated.

N.B. I see that a point from the Peer Review wasn't acted on, namely keeping date formats all in one format, either day-month-year or month-day-year -- made them all the former.

Images

All images appear appropriately licensed (no action required)
Although not required, all images have alt text (no action required)

Technical data

Dab links: None (no action required)
External links: 1) broadwaytovegas.com appears to be a dead link 2) loislaw.com requires registration, so "(registration required)" needs to be added to the citation
- I have fixed these. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the issues above, article appears in pretty good shape though it did need the copyedit. Pls respond to the above when you can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I just started a new job and am getting settled so I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the momemnt. Hopefully I can find some time shortly(over the next week) to address the issues. Aeonx (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again!! I have become busy dealing with the Queensland floods in Australia. You might need to put this on hold for another week or so. I really would love to get back into the swing of things on Wikipedia but my time of late does not allow this to be so. Aeonx (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this review? Not much going on on the page so making sure things are progressing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Rupert for those tech items. My main concerns were the content issues although with the response about the reinstatement I may be able to rephrase things myself when I get a minute soon (the First Lt. thing would be nice to confirm but isn't that big a deal) and then we might be able to put this one to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. It sounds like a rank to me (a lieutenant in the Australian Army could possibly in rare circumstances serve as an adjutant, although it would normally be a captain's position, so it might well be the same for a first lieutenant in the US), but I'm really just guessing unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done a bit of rewording re. the main outstanding point I had, based on an earlier response from the nominator, so with Rupert's assistance on the technical issues I think we can close this as passed. Thanks all! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]