Talk:Daddy, What Did You Do in the Great War?

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

GA Review[edit]

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism): I reviewed the six non-zero matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues. ("Gunn's own feelings of guilt" appears in a source but I think is OK per WP:LIMITED) I read most of the sources available to me, and no issues from those either.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): Both images are PD.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): Relevant. Positioning and captions are fine. Excellent ALT text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Background

  • World War I is currently linked at the second opportunity rather than at the first.
    • Fixed.
  • Recruitment for World War I was different from prior wars - I don't have access to this source. Does it state this specifically about recruitment in Britain?
    • I also don't have access to this source - I think this one was already here before I started editing the article. Happy to find an alternative source or edit the line?
  • chaired by Herbert Asquith - is it worth adding that he was the Prime Minister?
    • Good point! Have added.
  • Is "officially" needed? (Maybe it is, e.g. to contrast with the Voluntary Recruiting Publicity Committee and others)
    • I have changed to "organised an extensive official recruitment campaign".
  • Spot check on At the outbreak of World War I, Britain did not have a policy of conscription. The Parliamentary Recruitment Committee, chaired by Herbert Asquith, officially organised an extensive recruitment campaign to encourage men to enlist in the army - no issues.
  • Spot check on There were 1.4 million new volunteers in 1915, up from 1 million in 1914, and approximately 30% of military-aged men had volunteered for military service - no issues.

Publication history

  • Spot check on Upon seeing a sketch of the poster, Gunn signed up to the Westminster Volunteer Cavalry. to V&A source - no issues.

Design

  • Spot check on Unlike many other World War I recruitment posters, which were typified by simple imagery and words, "Daddy what did you do in the Great War?" has more detailed drawings with an elegant design - no issues.
  • Spot check on The war necessitated a use for psychological advertising—a method to control and influence the entire population, rather than targeting one specific audience for a commercial product - only issue is that the link is to Moeran Volume 2, but should be to Moeran Volume 4.
    • Thanks, I've added the correct Internet Archive link.

Reception

  • These Nicholas Hiley writes that posters like needs a slight tweak.
    • Fixed.
  • Spot check on now one of the most famous World War I recruitment posters - no issues.

Infobox and lead

  • All good. The use of a citation in the lead to support "an icon" is appropriate IMO.
  • Optionally, perhaps a bit more based on the Propaganda section could be added.
    • I've added a little bit, let me know if you have any suggestions.

General comments

  • I made a few very minor script-suggested tweaks, feel free to revert any.
  • A really interesting article, which, judging from the sources I reviewed, gives appropriate and balanced coverage to the subject. Thanks for your work on this, Unexpectedlydian; I'm open to discussion or challenge on any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reviewing this @BennyOnTheLoose, I will address your comments shortly! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 22:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose Hi again, apologies for my delayed response! I have addressed most of your comments above. The only thing outstanding is that I also don't have access to the source you've mentioned, so happy to replace with a different source if you'd prefer. Many thanks again for the succinct review, glad you enjoyed the article! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 20:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unexpectedlydian: I found the Hynes book, which from it's cover and title page seems to be titled The Soldiers' tale: bearing witness to modern war (rather than ...to a modern war). Page 31 has "That poster wouldn't have worked in any previous British war. Daddy wouldn't have gone to fight the Russians in the Crimea, or the Zulus at Isandlhwana, or the Dervishes at Khartoum; the regular army would have done the job. But this war would be different." I've tweaked the citation accordingly. I'm satisfied that the article meets the criteria, so am passing it. Optionally, you could consider adding a hatnote to help any readers who came to the article looking for What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? (WP:HAT). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2023 (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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Poster
The Poster

Improved to Good Article status by Unexpectedlydian (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Hi Onegreatjoke (talk), interesting article, I've written a bit on the First World War here. Review: article promoted to GA on 28 March; article is well written and well sourced; I checked some of the sources I have access to and found no issue with overly close paraphrasing, Earwig is clear; hook is perhaps moderately interesting to an outsider, though I would welcome other suggestions. I am not well versed in graphic design but it doesn't strike me as that unusual; I have added the quotation marks to the hook to make it clear this is a poster being discussed (there is somewhere guidance on when to use quotations and when to use italics, the article uses quotations); hook is mentioned in article and cited inline to an offline source from which I will AGF that it supports the statement; image looks to be properly licensed, as published in 1915, and is recognisable a this scale; a QPQ has been done. Approving but will keep an eye open for any proposed alternative hooks - Dumelow (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke and Unexpectedlydian: Agree with @Dumelow: that the hook is not all it should be. The article is great and the image as well, and I would like to promote a different hook. Here are a few ideas:
Bruxton (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bruxton, those are great suggestions. I can't verify any of the hooks as I don't have access to the sources but all are mentioned in the article and cited inline so can be approved on an AGF basis. One minor comment I have is that the term "First World War" is more generally preferred in the UK over "World War I"; eg. "First World War" is more than 2.5x more common in the most recent works in Google Books. I generally use "First World War" for British-centric articles for this reason. However the hooks reflect the usage of the article and I am not about to suggest it should be changed as a prerequisite for DYK appearance - Dumelow (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I hope that you will consider promoting one with the image. You also can consider the reviewer's comments about the use of WWI. Bruxton (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"left sarcastic answers"[edit]

References 23 and 30 are cited in support of that statement, but reference 23 does not support them being sarcastic or involving dark humor. It says,

"It was recorded as a favourite with many soldiers, who displayed it, complete with appropriate answers, on the walls of their dugouts. " Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Ref. 30 does not use the word sarcastic, but does describe it as dark humor. It attributes it to the Nicholas Hiley article, but I don't have access to that. Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. You vs YOU per litany of MOS/WP guidelines/policies cited. – robertsky (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy, what did you do in the Great War? → Daddy, What Did You Do in the Great War? – I might be sticking my neck out a bit too far here, but this is the title of a specific published work. It is the name of a poster. So it seems like WP:NCCAPS / MOS:CT should arguably apply. The other named posters in Category:Propaganda posters (and Category:Posters more generally) are using title case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this @BarrelProof, I'd be happy to support a move. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 08:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article presents it as the title of the work of art, a notable poster in this case, so it should be in title case. It could be presented as a quote from the poster's text, and the poster could have a different name, but that does not seem to be the case. I'm also surprised it's in quote marks rather than italics, but I've not given posters much thought. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uppercase the full word YOU per the title of the poster, with the rest in sentence case ("Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?"), which seems to be the correct and original name of the poster. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War? per Randy Kryn as that seems to be the poster source. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 22:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stick with my original suggestion. The suggested alternative is not formatted as the title of a work and has all-caps, which is very seldom used on Wikipedia (see "Invader ZIM" in WP:AT and MOS:ALLCAPS). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the original proposal. The "YOU" version is against MOS:TITLES and MOS:ALLCAPS and WP:NCCAPS; we do not use all-caps as a form of emphasis, even if the original did. "YOU" is not an acronym, so we would not do this to it. And it is not what the original poster said anyway (which was "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?"). WP does not mimic decorative font effects, which is entirely the point of MOS:TM, too. If it is felt important to indicate that the orignal had some form of semantic emphasis, the way to do that (per MOS:TITLES and MOS:CONFORM and MOS:EMPHASIS) is "Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?" (with {{em}}); and, for the title styling, to use {{Italic title|Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?}} near the top of the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed per MOS:TITLECAPS: Daddy, What Did You Do in the Great War?. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daddy,_What_Did_You_Do_in_the_Great_War%3F&oldid=1219384476"