Talk:Warren Peacocke

Warren Peacocke has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 20, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warren Peacocke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one, comments to follow over next few days. Zawed (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: eventually transferring from an independent company to the : to my mind, an independent company of British Army is an unusual concept to introduce in passing manner in the lead. Suggest: "serving with a series of units until being posted to the Coldstream Guards"

Done

Link London in the early life section and also add to place of birth in infobox

Added link but can't say for sure that London was Peacocke's place of birth, just that it was where his father came from.

I wonder, rather than recite the ranks of his brothers, if it may be better just say that they all went on to have military careers in the British Army and Royal Navy? Throwing it out there as a suggestion rather than something to be actioned.

Made a hopefully acceptable compromise (Some future research might provide the basis for an article for the vice-admiral and the general)

upon Peacocke joining the 88th it was serving in the West Indies, and there is no evidence to say that he ever physically served with it.: I feel the phrasing could be improved. One suggestion " at the time of his posting to the 88th it was serving in the West Indies. However, there is no evidence to say that he ever served there." This does leave the question, what was he doing between 1780 and 1783?

Done. The sources don't say what he was doing while the 88th were away. Having a guess, he may have been on garrison duty or serving in the regimental depot. He could also have been just doing nothing!

Not sure if it is a thing for you, but I notice some of the cites are not in numerical order.

If anyone ever asks me to change them in a review I'm happy to do so, but it really makes no difference to me. My original practice was putting citations in the order in which they were used to cite the sentence in question.

he was present at and served against the Irish Rebellion there: suggest "he was present at and served during the Irish Rebellion there"

Done.

evacuation of the allies forces: suggest "evacuation of the Allied forces"

"Allies" was a spelling mistake anyway!

(the latter rank and his previous brevet rank being army-level and not impactful within the regiment): this may work better as a note, when mentioning his ranks at the end of the previous paragraph, when you first introduce the idea of separate regimental and army ranks.

Split out.

west of the city to guard a flotilla of ships below.: the "below" lacks context here. Maybe: "west of the city to guard a nearby flotilla of ships."?

Done.

Hanover Expedition, reaching that country in November.: is country the best word to be using here?

Changed.

brevet colonel on 25 April 1808, but continued to command his company: this probably needs some context for casual readers. I think you use the "but" because a colonel would typically have a higher (larger) command than a company?

Simplified sentence. It's true that a colonel outside of the guards would hold a larger command, but that comment is more my own reflection rather than anything the source explicitly says.

...Peninsular army. In this Peacocke...: suggest "...Peninsular army and Peacocke..."

Done.

...backdating the rank to 23 January.: suggest: "backdating the promotion to 23 January."

Done.

Is there an appropriate link for "colonelcy"?

Added.

No red flags using Earwig tool, no dupe links, image tags check out OK.

That's my review done. Zawed (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC) PS You should consider entering this and the Richardson article into the Milhist article writing contest, you will get a decent amount of points especially for Richardson.[reply]

@Zawed: Hi, thanks for the review (and for picking up Hussar too!). I have replied to all your comments. I haven't had a go at the writing contest yet, but probably should. Has been a bit of a down month for me because all my books are stored away while the house is being painted, but that should change soon! Richardson is now at FAC, by the way. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine, so am passing as GA as I believe it meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]