Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Teddy Sheean

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.

---

• Closed as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat) 05:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Sheean

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. A very gallant Royal Australian Navy sailor who lost his life during the sinking of HMAS Armidale, Sheean is the only RAN naval rating to have a vessel named in his honour; the submarine HMAS Sheean. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What make him notable ? The boat is as its the only RAN vessel named after a rating --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from HMAS Sheean, Sheean is arguably the most well know Australian sailor and there has been a campaign by the Australian Labor Party to have him—along with two others—retrospectively awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the submarine is clearly notable, but the fact that the submarine is named for Teddy Sheean makes him notable in my book. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Before I begin, I state that I'm not going to support or oppose the article, as I don't know how big an issue has to be to disqualify it from A-class, or even if these comments are appropriate for an A-class review. That out of the way, these are my observations.

The "Sinking of Armidale" section is a little large...I think it goes into too much detail in relation to the rest of the article, as although the attack is what Sheean is famous for, it has an unblalncing effect on the article. Would it be feasible to farm out the information to either the article on the corvette or a separate article on the 'action', which could then be used as a {{main}} link at the top of a shorter, more Sheean-focused section (i.e. the first three paragraphs condensed down and the last two more-or-less as-is)?

I do agree that this section is slightly long, but I tend to think detail is necessary in order to describe the operation that lead to the actions which made Sheean notable. However, I will review this a little later and see if I can condense it some. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed this section, I don't think I could cut down the section much without keeping a decent level of detail, but I have added a little more that I found on Sheean's actions and death. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are fewer citations than I would like, with sizeable tracts of text with no footnotes. Then again, I'm a citation nazi and prefer every sentance to be backed up with a cite...your mileage may vary.

Every piece of information within the article has an appropiate and reliable cite attached. There may be a few sentences between cites in some cases, but these all come under the attached cites. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Would there be any worth in commenting on the Oerlikon and the "Fight On" motto in the submarine's ship's badge, or any sources with which to do so?

Will see what I can find. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I did find one site that discusses this quite well, but I'm not sure if it meets WP:RS, so I'm a little reluctant to add the information in from this source. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources commenting on the reactions to/opinions of Sheean between the 1940s and the 1990s? There's a lot of noise in the mid-late 1990s about him (the submarine, the retroactive VC), but what were the public reactions to his actions in the immediate aftermath of his death and in the years between then and now?

I haven't really seen any sources that address this. There have always been people who believe he deserved the VC, but the "noise" that occured in the 1990's I guess is just the way society has moved; it is the same in many areas such as this. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a little more information in the "Legacy" section, including that the AWM holds a painting of Sheean that was made in the 1970's and the memorial in Latrobe that was opened in 1992. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Article could use a good copyedit, but what article couldn't?

Hope these comments are of use. -- saberwyn 09:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support:
  • I've conducted the GA review for the article (ongoing as of this writing) and would like to see the prose issues listed there addressed before supporting.
    • All addressed now. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Has been promoted to GA status — Bellhalla (talk)
  • I agree that the "Sinking of Armidale" section is longer than the other sections, but feel that the length is appropriate given that this is why he's notable.
  • In the "References" section, there's a mix of title cases: the Macklin work has only proper nouns capitalized, while the McKernan work (missing it's subtitle, by the way) has other words capitalized, too. (The title of the Gill work is entirely a proper noun as is.) It would be nice to have consistency.
    • Have now capitalized Macklin's work and added subtitle to McKernan's. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Bellhalla. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

All looks good, so changing to support. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Couldn't find any major issues. – Joe N 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support. Checked on this one a couple of times in hopes another support had been added so I could close/promote but guess I'll have to be the third one and someone else can do the honours...! My points re. this excellent piece of work are basically prose-related:
  • Intro:
    • ...missing the planned rendezvous... - first time this rendezvous is mentioned so really should "a rendezvous", not "the".
    • The aircraft attacks at end para 2 and start para 3 weren't immediately obvious to me as separate actions - perhaps "subsequent attack" or "final attack" (since there appear to be a series of them, according to the main body) is appropriate for start para 3. Also (not vital but a thought) can we try and mix the wording up a bit, there are three instances saying effectively "attack by Japanese aircraft" in close proximity.
  • Sinking of Armidale
    • The aircraft crashing "into the waves" sounds a bit odd, how about the more conventional "into the sea"?
    • Not sure about the introduction of Arafura Sea where it is - reckon that should be earlier - just "engulfed" would do, what else would it be but the sea?
    • Prefer we did without "with the loss of his life" - seems tacked on and we've established that he died in the intro. Perhaps Despite this, Sheean maintained his fire as the water rose above his feet, and died firing as he "disappeared beneath the waves". - or has someone used that in one of the sources?
  • Legacy:
    • The last part of Of the 149 people onboard HMAS Armidale at the time of the attack, Sheean was one of the 100 who were killed during the ship's sinking and its aftermath, and many survivors attributed their lives to Sheean. also jars a bit with me. How about simply Sheean was one of the 100 people killed during HMAS Armidale's sinking and its aftermath; many of the 49 survivors attributed their lives to him. or something similar?
      • I wasn't that fussed with the wording here, either. Another editor had re-arranged this bit, but I have now changed it back to what I originally wrote here. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Heh, to be honest I still prefer my rendering - I think the one there now is still a bit wordy and arse-about. Suggest another pass at this one but won't withhold support on this account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Given a further tweak. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, well done - great research, writing and illustration. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ian. I think all of the above have been addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the one point above, very good - tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2009 (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.