Talk:Billy Sing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. I would much prefer if the references to the books had the pages in the reference rather than the text eg Hamilton (2008), p. 8 rather than in the text
2. The second paragraph of the intro is a little awkward in that Sing's ancestry is already established in the first. "since Sing was of Chinese-English ancestry and his father was Chinese" Suggest removing the italicised phrase
3. It would be nice to say more about his time on the Western Front
4. The War Memorial has more photos of Billy. Consider uploading them.
5. Some alt text would be nice.
6. There is one ambiguous link: Newfoundland

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the review of this article; I will be doing some work on it as soon as I can. Janggeom (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note for other contributors (apart from Hawkeye7 and me): point 6 above (ambiguous link) refers to the WWI Sniper template rather than the article itself. Janggeom (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Mention that he was evacuated sick from Gallipoli to Malta and then Egypt with influenza in November 1915
2. He rejoined his unit in March 1916 but was again hospitalised, this time with myalgia, and later mumps.
3. He was transferred to the 31st Infantry Battalion details at Tel El Kebir in July 1916. He joined it on the Western Front Front in January 1917.
4. He was wounded in the leg on 22 March 1917 during the advance to the Hindenburg Line
5. He returned from hospital in the UK in August 1917 and participated in the Polygon Wood battle
6. Was re-admitted to hospital in November 1917, with problems with his wounded leg
7. He was wounded again on 1 February 1918, this time a gunshot wound in the back
8. In July 1918 he was returned to Australia on Anzac leave, which was granted to men who had enlisted in 1914

Check his personnel file [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Following some investigation, it looks as if there were at least two AIF soldiers from Queensland named William Sing (the subject of this article, born in 1886, and another man born around 1892). This explains some apparently contradictory information I had been encountering. Referring to your initial list of comments: (1) reference format changed to achieve consensus; (2) text condensed following suggestion; (3) currently being investigated; (4) at this point, I am no longer contributing further images to Wikipedia (that said, the additional images would not add much to the article, in my view, but are of enough interest to include in the external links); and (5) alt text added. Thanks for your link to the subject's personnel file—that has been a tremendous help. Janggeom (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now added most of the information mentioned in your second list of comments. A few differences:

• The November 1915 hospitalisation appeared to be from myalgia, rather than influenza. While this could have been caused by influenza, it is not actually noted in the personnel file (p. 12 of 97). I have included mention of myalgia in November 1915 in the article.
• The February 1918 gunshot wound appears to have been from 18 February 1918 (p. 32 of 97), rather than 1 February 1918. I have indicated that the subject was hospitalised in mid-February 1918 in the article.
• I have found no mention of Anzac leave in the records and, not being familiar with this form of leave, I have not included it in the article. This article suggests that it was granted from September 1918, which was after the subject had returned to Australia, but other sources (such as this entry) suggest that it might have seen broader application.

The personnel file is not the easiest record to follow (especially some of the handwritten entries), so it is entirely possible I might have missed or misread some pieces of information. Apart from the differences noted, I believe I have now addressed all of the points you raised. I was pleased to see that the article did not have any significant shortcomings, as indicated in your notes on the GA review criteria, and hope these improvements have strengthened the article further. Thanks for your time on this review; I look forward to further feedback. Janggeom (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there has been progress, but the reviewer hasn't noted anything here in almost a month. Is this ready to be passed or is more reviewing to come? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• The reviewer is back. Do you think that it should be passed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  I haven't read the article in full myself, so that's up to you. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the outcome of 'fail.' Initially, the review indicated that the article met all of the GA criteria, with some minor points noted for improvement. In the days that followed, I worked on the article, noting the changes I had made. Later, some more points were requested for inclusion. I addressed all of the points within one week of the second round of points being raised. Where I was unable to verify information or did not make a requested change, I outlined my reasons, expecting either correction or discussion in reply. Some three weeks later, the result given was a 'fail,' with the criteria of MoS compliance and major aspects of coverage changing from 'pass' to 'fail' with no further comment. Janggeom (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Hawkeye7, following our discussion from 23–25 August 2010, I have now added most of the page numbers to the references as you had desired. I have not been able to add some page numbers from Hamilton (2008) because I do not have a copy of the book at hand just now. I believe that all of the related information (notes 59, 62–68, and 72–75) came from Chapter 13, the Epilogue, and the Postscript. I will be aiming to borrow a copy and put in the relevant page numbers as soon as I am able, probably in the next week or so, but this will depend on a copy being available. Janggeom (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, it seems clear that I am not going to be able to obtain a copy of Hamilton's (2008) book within a reasonable time (e.g., one week). I've edited the text so that it stands on the existing references that have full details. I have removed four minor details because I do not currently have page numbers for those pieces of information. I believe this concludes the revisions, and look forward to further feedback or a decision on the review. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)