Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Crichton (soldier)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

James Crichton (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

James Crichton was the last soldier of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) of WWI to be awarded the VC, for his actions during the Hundred Days Offensive. The article went through a GA review earlier this year. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and, all going well, seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

  • Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any issues; outstanding points:
    • "Nicknamed Scotty, he joined the British Army by enlisting in the Royal Scots Regiment at the age of 18" -- Are nicknames usually italicised? I would've expected either quote marks or nothing at all... Also, did one directly enlist in a British Army regiment back then? Or did he enlist in the army and was allotted to the regiment?
    • I take it none of the sources elaborate on his experiences during the Boer War?
    • "Promoted to corporal" -- I'm guessing that although we can assume he joined the NZMF as a private, the sources don't say so explicitly?
    • "Crichton harboured a desire to serve with the infantry" -- "harboured a desire" reads a little oddly to me, do the sources support "expressed a desire", or something else?
    • "He later stated that he had been selected for officer training, but a senior officer in the Auckland Infantry Regiment offered to arrange his transfer if permission was obtained." -- Do we mean selected for officer training in his bakery mustering? I assume so but we should probably spell out...
      • Have clarified that the officer training would have been with the NZASC. 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Zawed (talk)
    • "Crichton was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his subsequent deeds." -- I realise the citation tells us everything but perhaps we could paraphrase that into a sentence in place of the somewhat bland "subsequent deeds"...
    • "Crichton resumed his pre-war profession as a cable splicer" -- It seems a bit odd we didn't learn of this pre-war profession in the pre-war section of the article...
    • "worked on merchant ships travelling between New Zealand and England" -- Again I assume nothing in the sources on his specific role or duties?
  • Detail-wise I feel there are some gaps for A-Class, per comments above -- hoping there might be some more info out there.
  • Images -- Licensing of works from IWM and Auckland War Memorial Museum looks satisfactory.
  • Sources -- Appear reliable and formatted correctly.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert: Support: G'day, nice work. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, it lists his years of service as 1899-1904, however, in the prose it says he joined the Royal Scots at the age of 18. He would have been 18 over the period 15 July 1897 to 14 July 1898, so this seems to contradict the infobox. Additionally, the body of the article implies he served in the British Army for seven years, not five ("at the age of 18. Two years later, he transferred to the Cameron Highlanders. He remained with the Highlanders for five years...)
  • (NZEF) in October 1914..: remove the second full stop
  • He served in the Gallipoli Campaign: I assume with the New Zealand and Australian Division at Anzac Cove?
  • In May 1918: we seem to jump from mid-1916 to early 1918 between the first and second paragraphs. Is there anything that could be said about Crichton's service in this period? I understand that he was in a support role, and that such service tends to be glossed over, but even a single sentence might work. For instance, "After their arrival in Europe in [DATE], Crichton's unit was employed behind the lines in support of the New Zealand Division, moving many times throughout the next two years to various locations around France and Belgium"... Of course, this requires a source that actually says this, so if it doesn't exist, obviously it can't be said, but I wonder if you could look for something like this to fill in the gap here.
  • he would be reduced in rank if he was to proceed with the transfer --> "he would be reduced in rank if he proceeded with the transfer}}?
  • Auckland Infantry Regiment appears to be overlinked
  • He later stated that he had been selected for officer training with the NZASC: this seems a rather passive way of wording this. Is there reason to doubt it is true? If not, I'd suggest maybe rewording, thusly: "He had been selected for officer training with the NZASC, but he turned this down when a senior..."
  • Too easy, sounds fair enough. 02:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • During the Hundred Days Offensive, on 30 September 1918: was this action part of a named battle? If so, I think we should mention it here?

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • The lead seems a little light on detail, particularly on what he did to earn his VC, considering it's the sole reason for his notability
  • I agree with Sturm that a little more detail on the Boer War would be nice though I can believe there's nothing specific about Crichton in the sources so maybe a sentence or two about what his regiment was doing during the time he was there?
  • This was always a part of the article that was a bit frustrating to deal with since there is so little about his service during this time. I have expanded with a bit of detail about what his unit did during some of this time. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crichton's VC was the last to be won I believe the term "won" is frowned upon for military awards
  • Since you only have one short footnote, why not just incorporate it into the prose in parentheses?
  • It is a style thing for me, I have used this format with a few other VC articles that I have brought for A-Class review. If you insist I will do so, but my preference would be to use footnotes. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on 27 February maybe change "ceremony" → "investiture"?

These are all fairly minor points. With a little spit-polish, I see no reason why this shouldn't succeed at ACR and FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell thanks for the review, much appreciated. I have responded to your various points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm happy with the responses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.