Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Henry George Chauvel

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.

Henry George Chauvel[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Harry Chauvel was the most senior Australian general of the Great War. Seemed like a logical place to start improving the Great War articles. He also played a part in many other national events such as the 1891 Australian shearers' strike and the Black Friday Bushfires of 1939. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Your images need alt text. More to follow. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Somebody should fix it so it can be taken from the photo page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on lead and refs

The lead is too long. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a maximum of four paragraphs. It could also do with a copyedit, as there are a few prose issues.
- Reduced to four paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some overlinking in the lead. e.g. general, lieutenant general, First Australian Imperial Force.
- Done. 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ranks are not proper nouns and should not be capitalised unless attached to a name.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is inconsistency in that both First World War and Great War are used.
- I heard that consistency causes OCD in rats. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"an astonishing 167 km in just three days" - the use of "astonishing" is POV.
- No it isn't. It is WP:PEA.
Why isn't it mentione din the lead that Chauvel was CGS?
- Didn't think it was worth mentioning. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cite #97 is without an access date and is not correctly formatted.
- It's a standard template. Added accessdate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is inconsistency in the capitalisation of "retrieved" in regards to access dates.
- Two different standard templates. We can asked for one to be changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Hill 1978 have an ISBN? If so, it needs to be added.
- Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Chauvel mentioned in the Official History of Australia in the War of 1939–1945?
- Yes, in Long, To Benghazi, pp. 5-6, 9-11, 13-14 and 26. This is about the Army in the 1920s. McCarthy, South West Pacific Area — First Year: Kokoda to Wau, mentions his role as Inspector in Chief of the VDC on p. 3.
As an aside, there are several good photos of Chauvel just prior to the Second World War and during the conflict, some of which could liven up the "Later life" section. For example [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I believe there are also some images in the AWM collection that were taken during his funeral.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- One image is still missing alt text.
  - Done. Sigh. I hate pictures and alt text makes them even worse. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of your sentences read ackwardly, which leads me to believe that the article could do with a copyedit.
  - Ian had a go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only the lead so far, but will continue in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the last paragraph before the later life section you've got a couple of ships with names but no links; if we have articles for the vessels here I would suggest linking to them in the article.
  - If we had articles, I would link them, both here in in the other articles which refer to the same ships. Unfortunately, we have no articles for these vessels. Update: someone started an article on HMAT Wandilla. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (Talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support Still waiting on the rest of the copyedit, but so far the rest seems to have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support TomStar81 (Talk) 13:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- Okay, finished my usual light copyedit. I think the article always read quite well, nicely structured and illustrated, but there were too many unnecessary links and a few other little things here and there to be tidied up; anyway that's done. For the rest:
- Although the images are well-chosen and placed, almost all are too small to be satisfactorily viewed without clicking to open in their own window, which shouldn't be necessary. There's no longer a MOS requirement to be stuck with tiny thumbnails, so I'd recommend increasing the size of all except the 1902 portrait and maybe the Monash Valley one.
  - Done. Looks great on my 2560 x 1600 monitor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One bit of prose I didn't touch but might be improved: He attempted to maintain an increasingly hollow structure in place in the face of short-sighted politicians intent on cutting expenditure. When I read attempted to maintain the first time it sounded like he was trying to perpetuate the structure when in fact I'm sure he didn't want it but had no choice. Might be better expressed as He was forced to maintain an increasingly hollow structure in place in the face of short-sighted politicians intent on cutting expenditure. (lead and last section).
  - Done. Re-written. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the popular media stuff is fair for Chauvel but the info should be included in the new legacy subsection rather than in a section of its own. Also, while the IMDB may be acceptable as a source for simply listing films, it isn't reliable for an assertion that Lawrence's Seven Pillers presented a "wildly inaccurate" portrait of Chauvel. If it was inaccurate, that should be sourced elsewhere, and a bit more detail on why/how it was inaccurate should be included.
  - Oops. Reference missing there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, that's good but still believe we should have a bit more info on how/why it was "wildly inaccurate" if we're going to use such a strong assertion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an expert on Chauvel but I'd have expected a few more references for such a significant figure - are there no other biographies or encyclopedic articles (e.g. from the Oxford Companion) that might provide some additional insight? I'm not saying the article lacks the requisite detail but am just trying to ensure we have a well-rounded picture from a wide range of sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no other biographies or encyclopedic articles but I can provide some more references. (Also, there is a ref missing.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think your citing to the existing refs is fine, just that the range of the refs seems a bit narrow. If there are no other full-length bios that's fair enough, and since you've already got the entry from The Commanders I s'pose the only other one that comes to mind is from the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History - nothing original or worthwhile there? I'm just conscious of the fact that of the eight main refs (the books plus ADBonline), Bean and Hill are responsible for six of them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you like the Owen gun pic? I think it looks right out of Dad's Army. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh, yeah it's great isn't it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Previous reviews seem to have found and corrected all the issues with it. – Joe N 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I believe that this meets the criteria. Well done in my opinion. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (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.