Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt

Add links
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.
Close as consensus to promote Woody (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?


Well I started with Mike Jackson. We've had his predecessor as CGS and so it's fitting that I would finally bring you his successor. I've been working on this on and off since I got Jackson to FA and much of the last few days has been spent finishing it off and doing the requisite polishing. I'm pretty confident on this one and intend to take it to FAC in the near future, but I would welcome comments here to minimise surprises further down the road! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Support Just a quick run through
  1. I am concerned by the addition of Cold War to the battles/wars section of the info box, as war was never declared and the term really covers a period in history.
    I don't think it's a big deal, but I can remove it if you think it's necessary.
    I'd prefer to see it go as well; the convention in military bios seems to be to only list specific actions that might come under the umbrella of the Cold War. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dannatt returned to the British mainland to take a platoon commanders' course this is unref but did he not do a platoon commanders course at Sandhurst ?
    It's not unref'd, it's in the next ref (#8), and I don't know. If I were guessing, I would say it's a little more advanced than what one learns at Sandhurst (which presumably has to cater to the artillery and cavalry and engineers, etc etc and so perhaps only covers the basics of the infantry). At any rate, he wasn't too happy about it because the course is meant to prepare officers for their first operational tour, which he'd just done.
  3. He and his platoon returned to Belfast in late 1972 just the platoon or the battalion
    Presumably the battalion, but I'll check...
    Indeed, it was the whole battalion, but he was still a platoon commander. Any suggestions for rewording? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shortly after the end of the strike, he was posted to Cyprus was this with the UN or to the British Sovereign Base Area ?
    Both, they rotated around between the "buffer zone" under UN auspices and the SBA.

That's all for now but looks good Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does "the day to commander of the Army" mean? Is it a mistake, or am I not following the flow right? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a mistake (which is why it's always great to have someone else read your work!). Looks like I was thinking faster than I was typing! Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Stablisation": I've learned to live with British spellings, but please, if there is a God, let this be a typo.
    • "sation" isn't, but it should be (and now is!) "stabilisation! Thanks.
  • "in order to better man those in Afghanistan", "manning": It's better to substitute gender-neutral language for "to man", particularly for recent (2006) military campaigns.
    • I'm reluctant to re-write a sentence on the grounds of political corrrectness. I htink that's the most intuitive way of phrasing it.
  • "Sector South West": not Sector South-West?
    • Definitely unhyphenated, per source.
  • "In the event,": Almost no Americans will understand this. I'd go with "In fact" or "As it happened".
    • I don't think "in fact" works here and "as it happened" seems to conversational for an encyclopaedia. To be honest, it's intuitive (at least to a Brit) and I'm not sure what else it could mean, even if it's not a common phrase the other side of the pond.
      • Dank won't be surprised to hear that I agree with all points of your response, HJ... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Serbian–Yugoslav forces": would "Serbian forces" or "Serbian-led forces" work?
    • The dash is meant to mean that the Serbians were Yugoslavs (as the Socialist Republic of Serbia was part of Yugoslavia), but I can see how it can be read as Serbians and Yugoslavs without more context than a biographical article can provide. Any suggestions for re-wording would be appreciated.
  • "Shortly after his arrival, a Russian armoured column moved into Kosovo and took control of Pristina Airport, as a result of which, Wesley Clark, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, ordered Jackson, commander of KFOR, to block the runways of the airport and prevent Russia flying in reinforcements.": When there are this many commas, it's generally a sign that the sentence is more difficult to read than it needs to be. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- A monumental article, you've put a lot of work into it. Aside from my usual copyedit (pretty minor considering the length of the piece), here's a few things:

  • First off, I'm always a little dubious about relying on autobiographies for the bulk of one's information, though there's no doubt they're a boon when you just want to get more precise dates for things, or to get the subject's personal perspective on something (so long as it's labelled as such). It's a bit difficult to know where to stop and while I can't see too much data that isn't of interest I'd probably be happy with something shorter but more balanced with third-party sources.
    • I can see your point, but I don't like to limit the use of the most comprehensive account of the subject, even if they wrote it. I don't think there's anything especially controversial sourced to his autobiography and anything controversial or on which an autobiography is likely to paint a rosier picture, there are other sources to back it up. I would also note that Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay, an FA, relies almost entirely on the subject's autobiography.
  • As examples of what I saw as too much detail:
    • While it's normal to mention how many siblings the subject has if the info's available, the loss of a sister in 1988 doesn't seem to have particular bearing on his life based on what's here -- it's not like it happened when he was young and impressionable, and the article doesn't imply they were unusually close.
      • I think it fits well with the rest of the family stuff. The year is probably not strictly necessary, but it makes it easier to read.
    • I think "Dannatt attained general officer status" is a bit superfluous -- such clarifications don't appear to be required in most military bios of A/FA standard.
      • I think it's worth including (and I included it in Mike Jackson and most of the other generals' biographies I've written), as it's quite an important moment in his career (it also explains to a reader without knowledge of the importance of ranks and positions why it's in a section called "high command")
    • "Dannatt was later tasked by Jackson with briefing the assembled news media before he returned to the UK" -- the special significance of this is not clear to me, senior officers frequently seem to brief the media.
  • Re. changing tense back to present because he still suffers after-effects of the stroke, I still believe the tense should be consistent at the time it's first mentioned. I was going to say that you could add in Personal Life that he continues to feel its effects, but found you'd done that anyway, so I don't think the edit summary rationale is really valid.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good -- you might just make the ISBNs consistent in the refs now. We may differ in our opinions re. the sister and the general officer status, but it's not enough to fight over... Thanks for looking at the level of detail again, that was more the issue of relying heavily on the autobio, rather than a feeling that it was a "rosier" picture (of course the pun was unintended, wasn't it)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's easily solved. I'm no longer citing Heathcote (since the fact it was citing is not really relevant to Dannatt and is so obvious it doesn't need to be articulated for readers who know the British Army fairly well) so I've removed him and his ISBN. Thanks again for the review—always appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Richard_Dannatt,_Baron_Dannatt&oldid=1075714205"