Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmund Herring

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [1].

Edmund Herring edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the criteria, although I have not done this before, so I could be wrong. It has previously been peer reviewed and passed an A-class review from the MILHIST Task Force. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Hawkeye, welcome to FAC, nice article. Can you globalise "an Intermediate Certificate (ie graduated from Year 10)" I suspect its somewhere between a qualification that almost all Australian school leavers got and the certificate the small minority of 18 year olds who were gong to university had to achieve. Sorry to be pedantic but the meaning of the paragraph would be very different from one extreme to the other, WereSpielChequers 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a footnote (with appropriate references) which says: The Intermediate Certificate was awarded for the successful completion of four years of high school. This was at around age 14 — what is called Year 10 today. A student who wanted to enter University also needed a Leaving certificate, for the completion of another two years. Both were based on external examinations. The Intermediate Certificate was abolished in the 1960s." It was called the Intermediate because it came between the Qualifying Certificate (at the end of Primary School — Year 6) and Leaving Certificate (Year 12). (Sir Edmund would be rather tickled by the fact that the automated tools reckon that you need an Intermediate Certificate level of education in order to read the article!) Hawkeye7 (talk)


  • Support This is a great article which meet the FA criteria. My only suggestions are that the article should identify which 'B Battery' Herring assumed command of in Oct 1918 and clarify why NZ and British gunners served under Herring's command in Greece (was he the commander of the Corps Artillery at this time?). Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was B Battery, 99th Field Artillery Brigade. I have clarified this.
The Corps Artillery was commanded by Cyril Clowes. The normal practice was to reinforce the artillery of a division in the line. In this case,. Herring also had the 2nd Regiment, RHA and 64th Medium Regiment, RA under his command. The 6th Field Regiment, RNZA also served under him for a time. Added some text to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

I'm not a social historian, so I cannot tackle this topic. I have hived it off into its own article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new article for Intermediate Certificate rather than attempt to deal with finding references for the subject, which is largely off-topic for the article. Of course, I know full well what it was — you only have to talk to someone over fifty — but writing about the history of the education system in Australia is quite another matter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Converted them all to the Cite form. You should update WP:CITE#Citation templates to explicitly say not to mix them. At the moment all it says is that "For consideration of article consistency bear in mind that these two families produce slightly different citation formats" which has to be read in conjunction with "Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 22 (Long, Gavin...) you need to give the link a title per the MOS.
Removed link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 32 (Barcan..) is a book, and should be formatted as such.
Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did it need to be removed? It just needed switched from {{cite web}} to {{cite book}} and a page number added. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per the point above, Intermediate Certificate is now its own article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
The publisher of a newspaper is pretty meaningless. For example, The Canberra Times was originally published by C.J. Shakespeare for the Federal Capital Press in the 1920s. The paper was sold to the Fairfax group in the 1960s by Arthur Shakespeare. It was later sold to Publishing and Broadcasting Limited, which in turn sold it to Kerry Stokes in 1989 for $110 million. Rural Press Limited bought the paper from Stokes in 1998 for $160 million. Rural Press Limited then merged with Fairfax Media on 8 May 2007. Someone with a copy of the paper will find the editor but no publisher. I think its still Rural Press, which doesn't exist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost here though. I don't honestly care if the publisher field is filled in, I'm just asking that the newspaper titles be in italics, which you use the "work" field on the cite news template for. That's all. If you like, you can list the actual publishing company also, but the important bit is the newspaper title. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the paper (The Age) is in italic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 62 (Fifty Australians..) needs a publisher
It is not published. It was a famous exhibition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who put the information out on the web, that's who the publisher is. (As I recall, this is the Australian War Memorial?) We have to know who put the information out, or "published" it, on the web. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that has been added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images check out okay. They are in the public domain for Australia and US, being verifiably created or published before 1945. File:Edmund_Herring_by_William_Dargie.jpg, File:MacArthur and Herring AWM150813.jpg, File:Senior AIF officers (AWM 057633).jpg, and File:Mary Herring.jpg can be moved to Commons. Jappalang (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well-done article. Two comments:

  • In the Chief Justiceship... section, there are a few places were he is referred to not as Herring but as "Sir Edmund" or "Sir Edmund Herring". This should be changed to always be Herring. Also, please check in this section that all quotes have a citation at the end of the sentence (even if that means duplicate cites in subsequent sentences).
Changed references to "Herring". Checked all quotes, and added one extra duplicate cite.
  • Did anything come of the 1978 controversy?

17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by karanacs (talk • contribs)

Not really. It permanently damaged Herring's reputation; no biographical sketch omits it. The death penalty had been abolished in Victoria only in 1975, yet incident displayed that public opinion had moved a long way by 1978. It is also of interest to students of civil-military relations in Australia. The whole issue blew up again in September 2007. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit more to it, including a good reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Excellent article; I should be able to support with a minimum of changes, though a few minor things are currently unclear and some of the language is a touch colloquial. Some thoughts and questions:
    • "He was elected to the Melbourne Club in 1927, a year before Sir Thomas Lyle became its president." Who is Thomas Lyle (I don't think the wikilinked one is the one you want), and why is it significant that Herring joined the Melbourne Club a year before he became president?
No, the wikilinked is not the right one. Originally the link was red but no one has written the requested article. In an article such as this it is tough to get things like this right. I am after all writing about my university, my city, my Army and my country. Thomas Lyle was a renowned mathematical physicist at the University of Melbourne. And Edmund's father-in-law. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not precisely clear on the meaning of "unendorsed candidate", and it doesn't seem to have an article. Would a wikilink to independent (politician) be appropriate?
No, that's not right. I've wikilinked political endorsement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm still not quite clear. Can you explain to me what an unendorsed candidate is, and I can see if I have any suggestions for what to do with this? I was under the impression that it was a candidate running without the endorsement of any political party, but that would seem to be an independent. Can you explain the distinction between an independent candidate and an unendorsed one? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If you want to run for office in Victoria, you have to file the appropriate paperwork with the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC). This includes a deposit (£50 back in 1936) and, if you have been pre-selected by a registered political party, which usually requires a vote of the local party, then has to be signed by a party official who is registered as such with the VEC. Alternatively, you can also run as an unendorsed candidate, by lodging the appropriate form, which requires fifty signatures instead. Now, in this case, Ned was a member of the UAP but his faction was opposed to the unpopular official candidate, Ian Macfarlan. Since Macfarlan was a minister, under the party rules, he didn't have to face pre-selection, so Ned got the signatures from this group of young Nats and filed the paperwork as an unendorsed candidate. The seat was blue-ribbon conservative, so it came down to Herring versus Macfarlan, and Macfarlan won, but only just. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm really feeling very dense, and I apologize for it, but how is that different from independent (politician)? Is the distinction that, if he had won, he would have served as a UAP member? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. An independent is a politician who is not affiliated with any political party. Herring was affiliated and would have served as a UAP member. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that she has an article of her own, there seems to be a surprising amount of information about Mrs. Herring's activities, especially early in the article.
    • "6th Field Regiment, RNZA" I presume that these are New Zealanders; could that be made clear, perhaps by expanding the arconym?
Wikilinked it Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...managed to get a lift..." This seems rather colloquial.
Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but only worsens the problem of overuse of "embark" (which is one of the things I addressed in my copyedit). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have re-worded some bits to cut back on the use of "embark". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...so this was an operational command." To a reader with no background in military matters, this seems a little jargon-y.
Deleted.
    • "...fight it out with the Japanese..." Also somewhat colloquial.
Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The headings confuse me a little, as I'm not exactly clear on the meaning of "Papua"; I always thought it referred to the eastern portion of New Guinea, which made having two separate headings for "Papua" and "New Guinea" seem a little odd (rather like having separate entries for "Italy" and "Europe"). From looking at Papua, it appears that the word in this context likely actually refers to Territory of Papua; is there some way that that could be clarified?
Or separate headings for "Italy" and "Germany"... Papua is the former Australian colony; New Guinea was a former German colony that became an Australian mandate in 1920. They are geographical, linguistically and ethnically separate regions. Today, both are part of Papua-New Guinea. Changed to "Papuan Campaign" and "New Guinea Campaign". Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is exacerbated by the fact that the island on which both are located is also called New Guinea, right? Or am I mistaken about that? In any event, I like your solution.
Good. I try to reduce the confusion by not using "New Guinea" ambiguously. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...were created Knights Commander..." Is "created" the right verb here? I would have thought "appointed" or something would be better, but I'm also not familiar with the order.
Changed to "appointed". Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the first phase of the plan..." Which plan?
Operation Cartwheel. Added Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...and a committee for religious observances and services to mark the opening of the legal year." This is somewhat unclear: is the opening of the legal year a religious observance?
As far as I know. See Opening of the Legal Year Observances – 2nd & 3rd February 2009 Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. So what exactly was this committee charged with doing? I'm still a little unclear. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arranging the religious services. An interesting intersection between Sir Edmund's judicial and religious roles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes; see what you think. As well, if Herring had a significant religious role, why isn't it dealt with elsewhere in the article? Or am I being dense again? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You probably overlooked it: "He was also active in the Anglican Church, and for many years was chancellor of the diocese of Melbourne, the highest church office that could be held by a layman." Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, generally a fine article that I look forward to supporting when the niggling issues above are resolved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edmund_Herring&oldid=1138459232"