Talk:Ted Serong/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 02:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've given it a week to see if anyone wanted to get in before me so bags it now -- should be able to do by or over the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Toolbox checks

• No dab or EL issues.
• Ran Earwig and I have no concerns re. similarity to the sources except a couple in Obituaries Australia, which I know you've considered yourself. I think the stuff abut "innovative" warfare tactics, and "development of the Australian interior", and perhaps one or two others highlighted in the last two article sections could be tweaked a bit. I wouldn't worry about highlights in the top or middle. WDYT? I'll just wait for a response and/or changes re. this before I continue reading or copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day again Ian. All fair points, I've made some changes now [1] to hopefully address them. I am keen to keep the "innovative" description so I've used quotation marks, but I could also add in-text attribution if you think that is necessary. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Tks AC, see suggestion below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Prose/content/structure -- good detail and straightforward layout, just let me know if any concerns re. my copyedit; outstanding points:

• "His influence on the training of the Australian Army during this period was significant, while he also helped develop its doctrine for counter-insurgency warfare" -- this reads a little clumsily to me; did his influence stem from the doctrine he developed, or are the influence and the doctrine bit not closely intertwined?
  • I've split this sentence now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Re. inline attribution, I think that's always a good idea for quotes/opinion -- how about "Described by John Farquharson as a major Cold War figure", given the writer is Wiki-notable (assuming it is in fact the journo, which seems logical), which I think takes care of attributing "innovative" too?
  • Thanks, good suggestion. Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Not really necessary for GA (I think you have plenty of detail to satisfy comprehensiveness requirements) but thinking ahead to possible ACR/FAC, can we mention any particular actions with AATTV in which Serong personally took part?
  • I've done something along these lines in addressing the point below, although not in specifics (there might be something in either of Blair's biographies but my late night skim reading is letting me down). Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• I always think it's good to say why someone receives a particular decoration if the info's available (again not absolutely necessary for GA but would only require a few extra words); re. the DSO, the Obits Aust article links to an award file, and p. 10 mentions "outstanding courage and devotion to duty", while p. 8 says he declined a formal presentation of the award, a snippet I think worth including as it seems to say something about the man (though you've read much more on him than I). Ideally be good to find just what the OBE was for too but that's often harder than for gallantry awards in my experience...
  • Yes these a very good points. I have added some stuff re both the OBE and DSO - pls let me know what you think. Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Reading both Farquharson's obits suggests the term "right-wing" might be more appropriate than "far-right" -- how does Blair describe them?
  • I've fiddled repeatedly with this and changed it to "due to his support for several citizens' militia groups, conspiracy theories and right-wing political causes" (although this itself could probably be put better I admit). Blair characterizes some of the organisations Serong was in contact with as "to the right of the political spectrum", but also uses terms like "extremist" etc for some of the militias, or parts thereof etc (and I think Farquharson uses similar terms in places). I haven't included the "extremist" part though. To be honest I find this phase of Serong's life difficult to summarise with clarity as his actions / thinking seems a bit muddled, and whilst I could add some discussion of his justification for involvement with these groups I've purposely left it short as I don't want to cover it in too much detail as I think it would stray into WP:UNDUE. At the same time I wonder if I have failed to give an accurate sense of the subject here (am I actually leaving too much out?). Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Even though Farquharson mentions them, I don't think kids' names are generally used in WP articles unless notable in themselves (spouse's and parents' names usually are, so they're fine).
  • I'd been thinking of taking them out anyway so I've done this now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Images

• Licensing of the sole image is fine (PD-USGov)
• Not necessary to pass GAN but any chance of one or two "contextual" images in say WWII and Vietnam sections? Don't draw a long bow, only if you think they'd make sense and suggestion only for GA in any case... Actually this one, which I saw in the Defence Force Journal seems worth putting in -- the numbers on the blokes are a bit annoying but I'd be happy to remove them if you agree it should added.
  • Yes that would be a good addition in my book. Pls do feel free to. Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I've added this image now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Tks -- looking at it in the article the number don't seem very visible or off-putting, and I guess it could be argued that when you click on the image to see it better the numbers are helpful (especially as they match the original caption) -- but I'm still happy to make good on my offer to get rid of them if you think it would be an improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Gday I'm happy either way. I agree the numbers are not distracting in thumb size and are helpful so I'd say there is no reason to remove them unless you felt particularly keen. It is beyond my technical abilities though by a long way. Anotherclown (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Well I might leave it then but if you ever do want some assistance retouching images, I'm not an expert and I don't go in for the latest tools, but I can generally do things like that without too much trouble. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

• Sources look impeccable.
• No formatting issues I could see (never found ISSNs necessary for newspaper citations but no harm either, except perhaps clutter).
  • I guess with the ISSNs I include them for consistency (the military brain requires uniformity). More practically though I like to try to ensure that all sources have a code (be it an ISBN, OCLC or ISSN etc that might assist readers doing there own research to verify the existence of the source through a tool such as Worldcat.org and to find it and use it etc should they wish). Anotherclown (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    • No prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary -- great work and I'm sorry I didn't find time for a proper collaboration as I once suggested, but glad to be able to review and I hope you consider ACR and even FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this one on. I've made a bunch of changes and probably accidently undone some of your copy-editing in the process (sorry if I have). Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No prob, might've been one or two instances of that but not much, and I realise I dropped you in it with my link to the wrong Farquharson above... :-P Aside from my copyedit, the following points:
    • For the passage Serong stayed in Vietnam... to ...declared that South Vietnam had essentially won the war, we have five citations, which I think is a bit intimidating -- could we cite individual sentences with just the applicable sources to spread things out?
    • I felt there were too many quoted expressions in Later life so tweaked a couple, including the dreaded "innovative" -- see what you think.
    • I also think you could safely drop described by both Blair and Farquharson as being "to the right of the political spectrum" and just say right-wing individuals or organisations immediately before.
    • In the same sentence, your citations are [58][37] -- did you deliberately order that way or do you like numeric order, i.e. [37][58]?
  • I think that's it for now again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry I've been off grid for a bit as I've had some medical issues of late. Thanks for the continued copyediting, all those changes look good to me. I've made a few changes now on the basis of the points that seemed to be outstanding above [2]. Thanks again for your help and advice with this one, I'm not really that good with biographies. I have been particularly concerned about getting the tone right for this article given the nature of the subject so used quotes to try to avoid issues in this area. Your re-wording works for me though. Pls let me know if there is anything else. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Not at all, hope you're doing better now. Your changes look fine to me, it's been a pleasure to work with you on this and learn more about this guy (without all the hard work, for me, of researching!). I think it's good to go for GA (and beyond if you choose) -- passing now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)