Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Northcott

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.

John Northcott edit

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Still not finished with the WWII Australian lieutenant generals. This time it's Northcott, whose Great War experience consisted of one day of fighting. But it was a memorable day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very good article, and meets the criteria, but I've got a few comments:
- The introduction is a bit short
  - Done. Expanded,
- On what dates did Northcott serve with the 3rd and 4th Divisions and be posted to the UK?
  - Done. Added.
- Was he an Australian or British/Commonwealth defence attaché?
  - Done. Australian. Added.
- The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History's entry on Northcott has some useful material which could be included - it's critical of his leadership of the 1st Armoured Division and comments on the success with which he managed what could have been a difficult relationship with Blamey.
  - Done. added a little more.
- The Bibliography section needs a bit of tidying up: the first reference should identify that this is Northcott's entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography and if Hopkins rank needs to be included it shouldn't be in all capitals and should also include that he was retired (I'd suggest that the rank be excluded though, as John Coates was also a retired general when he turned his hand to writing military history).
  - John Coates doesn't have a bio because he promised to supply me with some info to write it up and I'm still waiting for it.
  - Done. Tidied up bibliography.

Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very worthwhile article as usual, though a little less detailed than other A-Class bios. Nick's already picked the first thing I was going to say, re. the length of the intro - other points:
- Intro: Don't think we need mention twice here that he was the first Australian-born NSW Governor - suggest leave that qualifier in the first para and just mention assumption of governorship in the last para.
- World War II:
  - You've earlier used 'Second World War' - term should be consistent (since you've used 'World War I', suggest 'World War II' be your term of choice).
    - Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The three years from Sep 42 to the end of WWII appear to be covered in one short para - should be more detail here. There's more on Northcott in the official history than just in To Benghazi - is none of it worth including?
    - Not much. Have added some more details.
  - When we say the Blamey-Northcott relationship was similar to Jones-Bostock, think you should briefly spell out how - do we mean because one was responsible for admin and the other for operations, or that they were the same rank but one was nominally senior to the other, or what?
    - You're quite right - not very similar at all! Added some more details to this.
      - 'Fraid it still doesn't really cut it for me - appears more there about differences to Jones-Bostock than similarities; the comparison seems forced and I don't think it really adds anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is 'Commander in Chief' supposed to be hyphenated or not? I thought yes but will take your word for it...
    - In British English, yes. In Australian English, no.
- BCOF:
  - Why did Sturdee make it a condition of his acceptance that Northcott be given the appointment of Commander in Chief of BCOF - where they mates or was there another reason?
    - Done. Right both times. Added some text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Northcott was a highly regarded and very successful staff officer but his periods in command of the 1st Armoured Division, II Corps and BCOF were brief and "noted neither for innovation nor conspicuous success." In two of these three appointments he was followed by Robertson who "possessed the ebullience and flair that Northcott lacked". This partially repeats what's been said in the para before, yet also covers more than BCOF. For that reason I'd suggest it belongs either in the intro or in a Legacy (i.e. summing up) section.
    - Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Governor of New South Wales: This section came off a little jumbled for me, date-wise, the first time I read it. Might be helped if you put his retirement as Governor in 1957 in chronological order, just before In April 1964, Northcott and Forde represented Australia at General MacArthur’s funeral in Washington, DC.
  - - Done.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I believe this article meets the criteria for A class. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - quite a good article and an interesting read. Just a few points: Support

What did Northcott actually do during the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York for which he was appointed an MVO?
- Done As director of transport. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a point here: the supplied ref states that Northcott was made a Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order. I know at one point the LVO was known as Members of the Fourth Class, but I think it would be best if it stated Lieutenant as opposed to Member in the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.Your call. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serveral terms in the article are linked multiple times. I have delinked most reoccurences, but please ensure only the first time something is mentioned that it is linked.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An unknowledgable person in the area of the relationship between Jones and Bostock or the Second World War RAAF would have no idea who they were. It would be best if it was at least stated Jones was CAS and Bostock the RAAF's operational commander in the Pacific.
- Done They could click on the links. Just kidding. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lol, true, but one has to pick at all of the small points. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In late 1943, Blamey proposed sought to appoint Northcott as his deputy" - grammatical error here.
- Done. Deleted "proposed". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the Government turn down the above request due to MacArthur? What did he say/do?
- Done. That it would not be a good idea to have another officer responsible to both the government and himself. Actually, he wanted Blamey to quit as CinC and serve under him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it just me, or was MacArthur a massive power monger? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This was probably fortunate for the Japanese people, as the Australian government would have treated them more severely." - that sounds rather POV.
- Done. Deleted
"Northcott's lack of experience in command once again showed, and once again his command was placed on a proper footing by Robertson." - the repetition of "once again" doesn't sound right. Also, it has not been previously stated in the article where/when Robertson placed the command on a proper footing after Northcott.
- Butting in, IMO the repetition of "once again" adds power to the statement and should stay. However agree we need to know about previous occasions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When in 1951 and 1956 did Northcott act as Governor-General? I doubt it would have been for the whole year as implied.
- Done. Longer than I thought. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's longer than what I thought, too! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2009 (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.