Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edmund Herring

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edmund Herring edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article to be reviewed for A-Class as I believe it meets the criteria. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead is way to POV, and needs to be rewritten.
 Done Kind of lobotomises it though
The lead is still slightly too POV, and the repetition of "was" in the opening paragraph doesn't sit well. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a coyuple of "was". All that is left is a string of facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better, although I believe the inclusion of "skillfully" is rather POV. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An endash is required in the infobox between Herring's service years.
All ndashes fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 06:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Would it be feasible to expand on why he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order and Military Cross, particulally the former?
 Done The former was for commanding his battery but for most of Herring's period of command it was marching to the Turkish border and then back again. I can expand on the latter though.
  • Linking dates is no longer required, and it is prefered not to have them as such. Consider delinking them.
 Done
  • The final paragraph under the "Papua" section is unreferenced, as is half of the last paragraph in the "New Guinea" section and the last sentence in the "Chief Justiceship and later life" section; these need to be.
 Done
  • I don't particually see the value or use in the "Awards and decorations" section, but if it is to remain, it must be referenced.
 Done
Several of Herring's medals remain unreferenced. Also, are you sure his entitlement to the specified World War II service medals is included in his service record? The record is not digitised at the present time, and it is not very often when entitlement to service medals in World War II is contained in the service files. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The record is not digitised because Herring did not serve in the First AIF. It's there though. Every file I've consulted contained the receipts for the campaign medals. There was a stamp with their names and the entitlements are usually ticked off. My problem is his WWI service medals; without a file, they cannot be referenced. If it's a problem, I can remove the references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Herring served in the First AIF is irrelevant; several WWII service personnel have had their records digitised. Actually, it isn't often when one comes across the medal sheet, many of the records do not include them. I'm not sure on what you mean by "remove the references" as this whole section must be referenced. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that the "It's an Honour" website violates WP:VER, and is probably best not to be used.
 Done Under the old Imperial honours system, awards were gazetted twice, in the London and Commonwealth Gazettes. Since the former reference is there, the latter could be safely removed.
  • The "Innes, Prue, "A full Life of Service in Khaki and Silk", The Age (Melbourne), 6 January 1982" reference lacks an access date, and must have one.
 Done Still there, so I entered today's date. Also restructured the bibliography while I was at it.
Sorry, but this has not been done. Also, it is prefered to use a cite template for both book and web sources. Consider implementing these. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Innes has an access date in the sources at the bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does now. I posted this comment before you added the date today. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • In the info box should the allegiance of any Australian Army Officer not be to the crown ?
I'll await the outcome of the discussion on the Australian military history task force.
  • Awarded a DSO for his service as a battery commander - the battery should be added to the list of commands held.
 Done
  • Not a fan of the Awards and decorations section in this format , but can live with it if no further objections.

The rest looks good Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentSupport with the changes.
    • Blamey should only be linked the first time. The second time you mention him, with respect to the Generals' Revolt, you should probably include his first name since it's been a while since he has been mentioned.
 Done
    • "The White Guard was reportedly a response to the rise of communism in Australia, its members ready to stop a Catholic or Communist revolution." Needs to be rephrased, it implies that Australia was communist, and it sounds awkward.
 Done
    • "(who had himself relieved a couple of division commanders)" specify, how many, who, etc.
 Done
    • "On 28 September], Herring, along with his BGS, Brigadier R. B. Sutherland, and his DA&QMG, Brigadier R. Bierwirth, boarded a US Fifth Air Force B-25 Mitchell bomber at Dobodura." First of all, why is there a bracket there. Second, please spell out or link the abbreviations to avoid jargon.
Unfortunately, there are no articles to link, so I have merely removed the stray bracket and described them as "staff officers".
    • "Herring trained his men for the next operation." This sentance is short and ambiguous. What is this next operation?
 Done I suspect that my ambiguity was deliberate. Herring didn't know what the next operation would be.


Besides those problems it looks good, however I would recommend getting it copy-edited before I will support it. Please do this and make the other changes I suggested and tell me and I'll come back and support it. Joe (Talk) 01:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on the references (this version)
    • (Sources) What in the world is ""The Honourable Sir Edmund Francis Herring, KCMG, KBE, DSO, MC, ED" 1982 Victorian Reports, pp ix-x."??
It's a legal journal. I've put it into the citation template. Unfortunately, it's only available online from 1989.
    • .#15: "AMF Army List of Officers, October 1950" ...what is this?
The Army list? It's a list of all the officers in the Army. Contains all the officers of the Army listed in order of seniority, with career summaries. (See Oscar White's The Importance of Being Earnest). Rare as hens' teeth. Added a reference.
    • .#'s 22, 24 & 25...I know that you have links to the books(?), but you need to use {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} anyway.
 Done
    • .#41..." Extracts from Berryman Diary, 20 September 1943, AWM93 50/2/23/331"....where is this from?
    • .#44..."Gavin Long interview with Lieutenant General F. H. Berryman, 11 September 1956, AWM93 50/2/23/331"....where is this from?
AWM93 is the "Australian War Memorial registry files" Item 50/2/23/331 is "War of 1939-45. Correspondence with Lt Gen F H Berryman regarding the loan of private papers, diaries and photographs and information for and comments on the official history [some comments are included]"
    • .#54..."31 August 1964, 1964 Victorian Reports, p. 47"...where from?
See above
    • .#'s 58 and 59 need dates of retrieval...consider using {{cite web}}.
 Done
    • .#58 again...can we get a specific page from the site? You just get us to the main page...
 Done

Support YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have a few comments:

  • I think you should use World War One instead of Great War for the section header, it is more encyclopedic.
 Done
  • I thought that the correct form for Australia was First World War / Second World War and not WWI/WWII ?
 Done The correct form is Great War/Second World War. But First World WAr is more encyclopedic. Corrected in the infoboxes.
  • The infobox seems a bit overwhelming to me. Could some of the commands be removed and/or some of the battles?
Another editor wanted more added. :(
  • (entirely optional) The lead seems a bit choppy to me, though I see that you cut it down earlier. Perhaps merge some of the shorter paragraphs?
  • The text itself seems a bit choppy to me, no specific issues, just didn't read quite right to my eyes. That is entirely subjective though and different for each reader. I would strongly suggest a copyedit before any attempte at FAC.
Agree completely. Unfortunately, I cannot do that at the present time - I have no search/replace or spell check at the moment. I'm not sure whether it should become an FA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regards. Woody (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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/Edmund_Herring&oldid=1090422804"