Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vernon Sturdee

< 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.

Vernon Sturdee edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)
Toolbox

Another biographical page on an Australian general. Sturdee was promoted directly from colonel to lieutenant general. He is the last of the pre-Duntroon chiefs of the general staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments

  • Is it really necessary to have two images of Sturdee receiving the Japanese surrender? The captions are even identical.
    • Which do you prefer? One is in colour, which is a big plus - but Sturdee is obscured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer the black and white shot, because Sturdee is not obscured, but it's up to you. Also, possibly note in either the caption or the image description which officer is Sturdee in the surrender photos?
  • Lead, "became head of the Head of the Australian Military Mission". Is "head of the Head" really what that is supposed to say?
  • The lead feels rather choppy, and reads that way as well, because of the consecutive short paragraphs. Could any of these paragraphs be combined, or maybe expanded slightly? For an article of this length, three to four paragraphs is the norm, per WP:Lead, so any combination of expansion and combination would probably work.
  • Education and early life, "(alter Sir Charles Merrett)." Is this supposed to say "later"? I would have changed it, but wasn't sure if there was a military jargon thing I was missing... :)
    • Typo. Often happens with letters on opposite sides of the Qwerty keyboard. My right hand types faster than the left. **It was a typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "he was commissioned as second lieutenant in". Should this be "a second lieutenant"?
  • Defence of Australia, "which the old military distracts were". Maybe I'm missing something, but what's a distract?
    • Distracts -> Districts. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post war, "demobilised but what should replace had not yet". I think something is missing after "replace".
  • Do any of your sources say why he burned his private papers? Not a necessary fact, but something that I was curious about after reading the last sentence of the article.
  • Citation and cite xxx templates should not be mixed - it messes something up with the formatting in a way that is way over my head and pretty much only the code-writers understand...
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite done. The in-line citations all use cite xxx, but the entries in the references section use the citation template. Dana boomer (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nice article, just in need of a few tweaks. I made a few edits, mainly copyediting and alt text; please check to make sure I didn't mess anything up or change any meanings accidentally. Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments. I have changed my "comments" to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – good article, but some work is required yet:

  • I would have to agree with Dana in regards to the lead. There is a bit of repetition, and further clarification is required in some areas. For example, the average reader would have no idea what Sturdee became Commander in Chief of. Also, the first two paragraphs could safely be combined, in think.
  • The first sentence in the "Education and early life" section is very similar to the ADBs, and could use some tweaking.
    • Done. I've re-written it.
  • Instead of following the ADB's suit, I think the information on Sturdee's father in the First World War should be moved into the "First World War" section.
    • The purpose of the stuff on his father is to establish his military background. I've expanded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that it has been expanded, I can see your point. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three latter sentences in the second paragraph of the "Education and early life" section are all introduced the exact same, and could use some re-working.
  • As far as I am aware, the rank of "first lieutenant" has never existed in the Australian Army, but is just simply "lieutenant". Am I missing something/have it wrong, or is this, somewhat erronously, attached?
    • Done. Most likely me failing to override the page name, but I had to do some real research to verify what you said was true, as it used to be called "1st lieutenant" in the RAE in Victorian times... Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just figured you were working on several articles on American military personnel recently. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "promoted to captain on 18 October 1914" - the year is redundant, considering it was just stated in the previous sentence.
  • "on Anzac Day 1915" - it wasn't known was Anzac Day until after the event, so I think "25 April" is best be used here.
    • There won't be anyone in Australia or New Zealand for whom 25 april 1915 isn't the most famous date in history, but people from other countries may not get it. Done anyway.
      • That's my point; we know, but people from other nations won't. Also, I think the date link to Anzac Day now could be considered somewhat of an easter egg ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "work at Steele's, Quinn's and Courtney's Posts" - it should probably be clarified that these posts were at Gallipoli, as it is not stated that he returned to the peninsula and the reader assumes it is in Egypt.
    • Done. There should be articles on these... Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've thought the same previously, but lack the sources to do anything about it ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be clarifed that he left Gallipoli in the Allied evacuation, other than leave some unanswered questions.
    • On 17 December 1915. One day before the official two-day evacuation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, which one of the 5th Field Companies was re-named?
  • I think further information on his DSO should be included. The AWM recommendation is here, if that helps. :)
    • I used it already asc a source for most of the details of what he was doing at Gallipoli and on the Western Front.
      • Sorry, must of missed that. It just still seems to be slightly lacking, though, in that it does not fully convey why his actions stood out from others for such an award. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for Sturdee's OBE.
    • Nothing in the recommendation, except that it is from Haig, so was for his work at GHQ. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continuing ""Australianisation" of the Australian Corps" - this needs to be clarified, as in what is meant by "Australianisation", which resulted in Sturdee's appointment.
  • I would recommend that File:Sturdee at Anzac.jpg be increased in size as it is rather small as is.
  • There is quite a bit of repetition of "where" in the first paragraph of the "Between the wars" section.
  • Is it known why, exactly, he was selected to jump from colonel to lieutenant general in command of Eastern Command?
    • Well, the post was graded lieutenant general. Sturdee was I believe the second most senior colonel in the regular Army after Lavarack. Officially, such promotions are based purely on merit but... Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Second World War" section, it should probably be clarified that the "AIF" referred to is the Second, not the one from the First World War.
    • I hadn't thought it was ambiguous but generally speaking, people think of The AIF as the First AIF. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more likely, he also the prospect" - a gramma issue there ...
  • In the "East Indies campaign" section, it needs to be clarified why the units were posted to several islands.
    • Because there are too many to post garrisons to all of them? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did he assume command of the First Army?
  • The article could benefit from a few extra images, I think, especially in the "Western Front", "Between the wars" and earlier in the "Second World War" sections, which are all a little bare.
  • The capitalisation of access dates in the citations and references is inconsistent.
    • you mean the word "retrieved"? There's an inconsistency between the LondonGazette and Citation templates. We'll have to petition for a change to such widely used templates. Which is correct? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I would say the capitalised varient is the best form. Also, it you use Template:Cite web or Template:Cite book then it is all consistent. If you do swap these over than you do not need to re-add the whole form again, just change "Citation" at the start of the templates to "Cite web" or "Cite book" as the basic additives are the same. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very good all up, took the liberty of copyediting for prose but the detail and referencing was already at a high level. Some further points:

  • Sturdee returned to Australia, and his AIF appointment was terminated on 14 March 1919 - does this mean they took place the same day? If not, I'd have thought the AIF Project site had his return date or, failing that, the sentence could be rendered as something like Sturdee returned to Australia following the Armistice, and his AIF appointment was terminated on 14 March 1919.
    • Clarified, using the embarkation roll. Sturdee's file is not online. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, is the standard Australian Army expression “Commander in Chief” or “Commander-in-Chief”? You have it consistently as the former, I'm just curious.
    • The Army decided to dispense with the hyphens many years ago. Sometime after the Second World War but before I came on the scene in the 1980s. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article could use a few more illustrations. Why not include the AWM pic of Alfred Hobart Sturdee at Gallipoli for a start, given the space you rightly allocate to his career? Another thing I've suggested before when there were few pics around is to break up the grey stuff with a quote box or two. Back on the images, don't forget to check Picture Australia as well as AWM directly, since the former includes stuff from state libraries, NAA, etc.
    • That's a good site. I've bookmarked it. Alfred is much more historian accessible that Vernon. His file is available. his papers are in the War Memorial. There's even photos of him from the Boer War. Too bad he isn't notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since your “Post war” section is one long para (which I understand, as it all flows quite logically as one) and the “Later life” section is two short paras, you might consider merging the later life paras, and then combining with the post-war section, to make a two-paragraph “Post-war career and later life” section.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hawkeye, not sure that my last two comments have been acted on despite the responses. Were you going to add some more images such as one of his father at Gallipoli (would probably work best in “Education and early life”) or, failing that, some quote boxes to break up the text? Also, were you going to merge the last two sections? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I twice uploaded pictures, then decided not to use them. I will try again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I tweaked some readability issues, but it looks good now. – Joe N 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that this article meets A class criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2010 (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/Vernon_Sturdee&oldid=1156946616"