I am nominating this article to be reviewed for A-class as I have made some substantial improvements to it over the last few weeks. It has just been passed as GA, and I believe it meets the A-class criteria. I am willing to make further edits for improvement. All comments and ideas welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
After a stint on the Suez Canal defences, Prehaps could be re-worked After initially being employed in the defence of the Suez Canal. I just dont like the word stint.
In the twelve months up to July 1912, Wark was a senior member of the Australian Army Cadets, later rising to the rank of sergeant. A senior member of the AAC would suggest a officer rank. So before becoming a sergeant he was a corporal ? not very senior.
I have slightly re-worded this, but all of my sources state he was a senior cadet. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
for the next year he was assigned to full-time defence duties in the port of Sydney. This suggests that prior to this he was only assigned part time duties ? if so details of his civilian occupation at the time could be added.
the battalion was tasked with serving on the Suez Canal defences. This suggest they were employed in Flood defences or similar prehaps again re-worked to the battalion was tasked with the defence of the suez canal.
Wark gained admission into to attend the Army Infantry School. is this a typo ? Wark gained admission into the Army Infantry school
Wark's men successfully repelled the leading waves of a German counter-attack before using artillery to repel the remaining attacks. I presume warks men did not man the artillery ? this could be re-worked then calling upon the artillery to repel the remaining attacks or then calling down artillery to repel the remaining attacks
I think I have clarified this, if not I'll have another look. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise it look good and I enjoyed reading about Wark Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Support. I couldn't find anything wrong with it. Good work on an interesting and informative article. Cla68 (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Support. Compared to other military bios, this one is good. This article would appear to be a future FA. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Support. Very interesting. - Hargrimm | Θ 23:10, 11 September 2008 (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.