Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frank Horton Berryman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Frank Horton Berryman

[edit]
Passed —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)
Toolbox

Another Australian general. This time it's Berryman. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with Draughtsman. I know it goes to a disambig page, but that page actually defines the term. Anyway, I set "draughtsman" to point to "Technical drawing".
    • No problems with links
    • Sources look good
    • Ref 11 is not in the bibliography (1951 v. 1946 (typo?))
I used the 1950 copy on this one. It covers the post-war, but of course is missing officers who passed from the scene by then.
    • I believe that we've discussed refs like 37, 42 and 51 in previous reviews, right?
Yes.

Comments - Just a few initial comments on the lead and infobox.

  • The lead is a tad long, and could do with a little shortening, suggestions are:
Blehhhh. Normally I get "it is too short"... Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he entered Royal Military College, Duntroon with one of its earliest classes." - "with one of its earliest classes" can be changed to the year (1913) he entered Duntroon.
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Major General General Staff of the First Army." - Is the "Major General" prefix really necessary?
Yes, it is a title, but I have removed the earlier reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Later that year, Berryman became Deputy Chief of the General Staff under the Commander in Chief, General Sir Thomas Blamey," - Umm, as the DCGS wouldn't he have been more under the CGS then Blamey? Also,
For some things (although I can't think of one off the cuff). The DCGS was in charge of Advanced LHQ, the headquarters in Brisbane. Northcott was at LHQ down in Melbourne. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Berryman hoped to become Chief of the General Staff but he was passed" --> "Berryman hoped to become Chief of the General Staff, but was passed".
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mention of Berryman's KCVO in the lead is probably not vital, so I would cut it out.
 Done
  • The use of "as such" is a bit repetitive in the lead. Please substitute some of these for alternate wording.
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The postnominals "pac" and "psc" are not typically used in articles as far as I can see, so think about removing them.
Thought about removing them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was an Australian Army officer who rose to the rank of during World War II." - the "rank of" ...?
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Berryman became colloquially known in the Army as Frank the Florist" - "Frank the Florist" should be in quotation marks.
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berryman's rank should probably be capitalised in the infobox.
 Done As you wish. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think his service number is really needed in the image caption.
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further imformation on Berryman's DSO and two Mentions in Despatches should be included. I think the AWM's records could assist in this. [1]
 Done Added citations Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Hawkeye? Some of the suggestions I made that you have stated as being done have not been carried out. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just re-checked them all. Appear to be okay. Perhaps a misunderstanding about what was required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps you are right. I was mainly referring to the "Major General General Staff" and "pac"/"psc" comments. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've fixed some minor errors and the only suggestion that I have is that you add some more images - there's only one outside the infobox, and even on my laptop monitor there's a big wall of text effect. – Joe Nutter 19:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport Another very good looking article, just some minor things:
    • Intro: As with an earlier ACR of yours, and echoing Bryce above, I think for the sake of commonality with other articles it might be better to drop pac/psc as post-nominals here. Or, if they were to stay, they'd at the very least need to be linked otherwise the casual reader won't have a clue about them.
 Done Dropped them. Sniff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, I think we need GSO1 either linked or spelt out, one or the other.
 Done Spelled out. There is no page to link to. One urgently required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox: I think nicknames generally take double quotes rather than italics (though support isn't riding on it...!)
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great War: "He was wounded in the right eye in September 1918" - might be nice to clarify if it had any permanent effect or not, if known one way or the other.
 Done There was no permanent damage to his sight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Between the wars: GSO1 link or spelling-out again...
 Done I can tell it's going to have to be me who has to write the article on British Army Staff Ranks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • World War II: Following up on Joe's comment above, it's mainly in this section you get a 'wall of text' feel, even though there are two illustrations. Suggest two things that would help alleviate this if no other pics around: 1) break the section up into a couple of subsections (I'd do this anyway) and 2) add a quote box or two if you have any choice tidbits by or about him that can stand on their own. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Added a text box. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I suggest putting the quote about Berryman's work with GHQ in a quote box and perhaps finding some other way to break up the long text section under "Pacific". Otherwise, I think the article is good to go. Good job. Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Added a text box. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for actioning those - full support for another fine addition to this series of Oz general officers... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Frank_Horton_Berryman&oldid=1142557628"