Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Percy Herbert Cherry

< 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.

Percy Herbert Cherry edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting this article be reviewed for A-class as I believe it meets the criteria. However, I am willing to make further improvements when and if necessary. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Nice work. It meets A-class requirements, and I can't comment on grammar (better leave that to someone else!). JonCatalán(Talk) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks good-couple of notes. First, I personally like the date linked, and have a comma. However, that is not necessary. Second of all, I don't think that 'good shot' sounds right in an encyclopedic article. Next, when you are talking about the German officer, the grammar gets a little confusing, and mortally is spelled incorrectly. Also, under the Victoria Cross section, you state that 'the enemy was overcome'. I don't know if it just me, but the grammar doesn't sound correct. Firefight is one word, not two. Stokes Mortar should probably be an article. I wondered what they were when I was reading the article. I think that the section 'Victoria Cross and death: March 1917' should be split up. Have death separate from Victoria cross. That is not necessary, however. Good job, --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look and commenting. Now lets see: I'm not sure what date you are referring to, but it is now current practice to leave the dates unlinked; I have re-worded the "good shot" in the lead to "skilled" and in the early life paragraph to "talented"; re-worded this section and think it's alright now, if not I'll have another look; typo; this section reads alright to me, but I'll see what others think; corrected and I don't have enough knowledge on the Stokes to create a stub, however, it was just a type of mortar used during the First World War; and finally, I have split these into two sections. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits look good. I'll see if I can do anything on the Stokes page. The prose section is lacking references currently, and I'll see if I can find anything else. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "The prose section is lacking references currently" are you refering to the Cherry article or the Stokes article? Thanks for your contributions, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry. There are no references in the prose section at all. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
I'm not sure what you mean, everything in the Cherry article is referenced except for the lead, which summarises referenced material in the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • There are no such dates like this in the article, as I know it is against the MoS. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • correctly
  • The word correctly is not used in the article, however the word incorrectly has been used appropiately in the "Notes" section, and is referenced. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • I did not wish to have a third party editor copyedit this article for the time being, as I wished to see if I could achieve A-class with my own writing and copyediting abilities. Also, it is not required. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has now been copy-edited by Roger Davies. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this may help too. None of this is required. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

The Germans are frequently referred to as "the enemy". While this is fine in direct quotes, elsewhere it creates a NPOV slant.
  • I have changed this in most cases to "German" or "Germans", but have also substituted in favour of "opposing" and "rival". If this still creates a NPOV slant, I can have another look. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from the London Gazette should probably be cut as follows: "His Majesty the KING has been graciously pleased to approve of the award of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned Officers and man:".
  • Are you sure his wife was née "Russel"? The usual spelling is "Russell".
    • I have re-checked my sources, and apparently it is just the one "l". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit/recast (to reduce density)? "On 1 December, Cherry was evacuated from the peninsula to Egypt suffering bomb wounds to his face and head,[6] where, owing to a shortage of officers, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 9 December." > On 1 December, injured by bomb wounds to his face and head, Cherry was evacuated to Egypt, where he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 9 December.?
  • Queant or Quéant? You have both.
    • The latter; fixed. 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, good work, --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support I left comments at the peer review without noticing this. Fix the issues at my peer review, then please archive it. Generally, you should only have one review open on any article at any one time. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Woody, will address issues and close peer review. I usually wouldn't have left it open, but as no one had commented I was unsure on what to do. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues addressed, and peer review archived. I apologise for any inconvenience or confusion caused. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:34, 27 September 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/Percy_Herbert_Cherry&oldid=1189850078"