Talk:Horace Robertson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I hereby claim this Australian military bio for review and will aim to get to it in detail by the weekend. At first glance basic structure looks fine, anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical review

• No dab links
• No external link issues

Early life

• For the uninitiated, can we spell out who he wouldn't have received permission to marry?
  • It says he married Jessie Bonnar. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Lol, my bad -- the "o" in "who" whould have been a "y", i.e why he wouldn't have received permission... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh. He was too young. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Great War

• In March 1918, he was posted to Headquarters Delta Force in Cairo. This was disbanded in April and Robertson became Deputy Assistant Adjutant General (DAAG) at AIF Headquarters in Cairo. In January 1919, he became Assistant Adjutant General (DAAG) at AIF Headquarters. -- Something looks funny here...
  • Should have been "AAG" instead of "DAAG". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Second World War

• Robertson's war therefore ended as it had begun -- Sorry, guess I missed something but not clear to me how this is so...
  • I only meant by taking the surrender of an enemy general. Removed comment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-war career

• It remained to main the occupation work -- Unsure what's meant here; is it "man" the occupation work?
  • Should have been "make". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well there you go, I had completely the wrong idea, I thought "work" was the second bit of a compound noun and there it was a verb... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

References

• Australian Brass should have an ISBN shouldn't it?

• A few people out there like to see OCLC numbers for books that don't have ISBNs (the official histories are obvious candidates) -- I'm not that fussed but if you intend to take to ACR/FAC, I'd think about it.
  • I normally add OCLCs during a lunch hour before ACR. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• I know you like to leave multiple authorlinks in the citation templates so you can copy any one of them to other articles and know the link is always there, so even though I don't think it looks good, I won't give you a hard time about it.
  • There seems to be a lot of notable authors. Indeed, Grey and McCarthy are also official historians, so probably notable too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• However, I think you should drop the access dates on the official history entries. They're straight scans of books that exist in precisely the same form in hard copy, with page numbers and the rest, so unlike for a website (or online book edition like ADB) a retrieval date isn't necessary. Moreover, from an aesthetic point of view, the template displays the retrieval date differently to most, i.e. with a comma and lower-case "retrieved".
  • We can take it up with the template maintainers. It is there because the War Memorial could change the URL on us. They've done this once already. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, but I'm not sure that negates the point about them being straight copies of books -- anyway, it's not a stopper for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

• All appropriately licensed.
• All have alt text except one in infobox -- may as well be all, eh?
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary

• Looks good, hope my copyedit hasn't unintentionally altered any meaning. If you can respond to the above minor points I'll be happy to pass as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Only outstanding query now is the marriage permission, thanks to my earlier typo completely confusing the point of the sentence... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, tks for that last change -- passing as GA, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)