This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abraham, B.S.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
With the holiday season upon us, we're very short of reviewers at A-Class Reviews and are likely to remain so for the next month or so. If just five new reviewers each reviewed one article a week, the problem would be solved! To keep track of Milhist articles for peer and A-Class reviews, simply paste the code – {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} – onto your talk page.
Similarly, copy-editors are currently in short supply. If you can help out at the Copy-editing section of the Logistics Dept, it would be much appreciated. If you can help with A-Class Reviews and Featured Article Candidates so much the better! To keep up to date with Milhist articles needing copy input, just paste – {{WPMILHIST Copy-editing alerts}} onto your talk page.
The debate on whether Milhist should adopt the new C-Class has been closed, with a strong and clear consensus against adopting. The archived discussion is here.
The Milhist review structure is itself being reviewed. The idea is to see how it can be improved, or whether it needs changing or updating.
The month-long trial of partner peer reviews with Video games is being discussed. All feedback welcome!
Awards and honors
Congratulations to Buckshot06, who has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his consistently excellent edits and his continued commitment and tireless efforts towards improving the quality of articles pertaining to military history.
Congratulations to Piotrus, who has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding contributions to Polish military history, including the creation of numerous Featured Articles, A-Class articles, and Good Articles on the subject.
The Contest department has completed its fifteenth month of competition, which saw 15 entries. The top scorer this month is JonCatalan with 32 points, followed by Cam with 20 points. Ed!, David Underdown, CyclonicWhirlwind, and Blnguyen also fielded entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 193 points in total. The Chevrons go to JonCatalan and Cam gets the Writer's Barnstar. The May 2008 winners, Cam and Redmarkviolinist have been belatedly awarded the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar for coming first and second respectively. You are encouraged to submit any articles you are working on as entries.
Tag & Assess '08 has now closed, with approximately 10,000 articles successfully tagged. Many thanks to all those who participated. The top three scorers were Jim Sweeney (Gold Wiki), Dashiellx (Silver Wiki) and Ejosse1 (Bronze Wiki).
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Glad to see you're starting to make use of the London Gazette for referencing, however, it would be helpful if you could use the template {{tl:LondonGazette}}, firstly it means we use a consistent form across wikipedia, and it also means that next time they change how their urls are made up, we should only have to change the template, and all references to it will be fixed - if every reference is coded by hand, they all have to be fixed by hand, and believe me, that gets deeply tedious! David Underdown (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Good work there! Well done. You can make requests for assessments at WP:MHA#REQ: probably quicker and easier than typing a message for Nick each time :)
The Exceptional Newcomer Award
I'm seeing you all over the place at the moment, making fine contributions. Keep up the good work, it's much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Abraham, B.S. Roger Davies has asked me to take a look at the above article with a view to you nominating it for WP:GA. You've done an excellent job with it so far - most pleasing of all is that the article is well-sourced. If the sources are in place, everything else is relatively easy ;)
With regards to GA, it doesn't meet all the GA criteria yet, but it's not far off. If you nominated for GA today, it would most likely be placed "on hold" and the reviewer would give you a list of issues to address before passing it. If I was reviewing the article in its present form, I would mention:
The article lead is too short. Per the guidelines on WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the entire article (perhaps a sentence per section). A good rule of thumb is that, if the rest of the article was removed leaving just the lead, a reader should still be able to get a decent feel for the subject. DoneAbraham, B.S. (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Manual of Style compliance is generally good. However, the prose would benefit from a light copyedit in places, and multiple short (one- or two-sentence) paragraphs are discouraged. If possible, these should be merged into their surroundings. DoneAbraham, B.S. (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
All citations and references that refer to a web site need a retrieval date to show when the site was last accessed (it helps track down archived pages if a link goes dead). They should also be consistently formatted - although you don't have to use them for GA, the templates on WP:CITET might be helpful. DoneAbraham, B.S. (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It may be worth subdividing the Military life section into Gallipoli and Western front, as these are the two main episodes in his army career. Your call though. DoneAbraham, B.S. (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You may be asked to expand the Early life and Post-military life sections (more the former than the latter) - I realise his notability derives mainly from his army service, but as a WP:BIO article these two sections lack information, and GA expects broad coverage of the article subject.
The See also section is normally used for linking to other relevant Wikipedia articles. Given the contents, perhaps it should be titled Further reading instead? DoneAbraham, B.S. (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's all I spotted on a fairly quick read-through. You can take a look at articles like Henry Peel Ritchie or John Brunt (both VC recipient Good Articles) to get an idea of the standard we're after at GA. Hope this helps! EyeSerenetalk09:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to the drive. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIEStalk09:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The criteria for Military history A-Class reviews have been overhauled. The new standard is deliberately set higher than before, and is much closer to featured article quality. The new criteria are:
A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
The timescale for A-Class articles has also been changed to give more editors an opportunity to participate.
The six-monthly Coordinators' election has been moved back a month to avoid clashes with the holiday period. The sign-up period will run from 1–15 September and the elections themselves from 16–30 September.
The Contest department has completed its sixteenth month of competition, which saw 22 entries. The top scorer this month is new entrant Bellhalla with 41 points, followed by Blnguyen with 33 points. Cam, Ed!, David Underdown, and Ferbess also fielded entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 226 points in total. The Chevrons go to Bellhalla and Blnguyen gets the Writer's Barnstar. You are encouraged to submit any articles you are working on as entries.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
You don't need to do anything once you have improved your article. It will be assessed and tallied up at the end of the month by a coordinator. If you want an assessment before then, leave a comment at WP:MHA#REQ. If you need any more help, don't hesitate to ask. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, all tallied and scored at the end of the month by a coordinator. You will have to wait until then I am afraid. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Honours and Awards
I saw that you removed the Honours and Awards section from Harry Murray - saying it was unnecessary? Did you have a particular reasoning for this? I have found the ribbon bars and list of honours/awards/medals to be quite interesting, particularly with this person - as the opening para notes, he was "often described as the highest decorated infantry soldier of the British Empire during the First World War". To see the extensive list of medals he was entitled to was informative. Whilst the major awards for gallantry/bravery are mentioned in the body of the article, the fact that he was also entitled to the Coronation medals and the World War II medals also adds to the interest in the subject. I would suggest that the Honours and Awards section does not detract from the article, and does add interest, and should be retained. PalawanOz (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason for removing the ranks from the lead? It gnerally seems to have been foudn to be OK, when people are known primarily for their military service. Particuallry in the case of Marmaduke Pattle and Eric Lock they held those ranks at the time of their deaths on active service, it could be more arguable if they had survived the war, and done other things later, since it's normally only those of General/Flag/Air Officer rank taht are automatically entitiled to continue using their ranks on retirement (Though those of lower rank are sometimes specifically allowed to do so, but this will be mentioned in the Gazette with their retirement). David Underdown (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me butting in to your chat... but interestingly this page contains a previous discussion on this matter.... with a very vague conclusion admittedly. PalawanOz (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find anythin in WP:MILMOS or WP:MOSBIO but I don't think that been the conclusion reached previously , where someone continues to hold a rank, or unamibiguously held it at thier death, it seems to be just as valid to include it for them as for officers of higher rank. I had a quick search but missed the one that PalawanOZ has found. Anyway, I've created a new discussion at WT:MILHIST#Ranks in lead. David Underdown (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Richard Crane Shalders
Two things:
How did you learn of his retirement? (I haven't been able to find anything.)
FYI, the ADC post-nominal does mean Aide-de-camp; as senior military officer in WA, that makes him ADC to gov of WA (as if the SMO of WA didn't already have enough to do??), and while he holds that office, apparently he is entitled to the post-nominal "ADC".
I assume you meant Commodore Shalders when you sent that message? I learnt of his retirement from the Navy Newspaper which had an article about his career, retirement and the successor to his position. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC) p.s. I already knew what ADC meant.
Thanks for the reply.
"I assume you meant Commodore Shalders when you sent that message?" - You assume correctly.
Do you know if that particular issue of the Navy newspaper is on-line?
Hi, I was looking through the list of people willing to copyedit articles and came across your name. I was hoping you would be willing to copyedit the article Harry Murray for me? I have currently nominated it for GA, and have been informed that it should pass, and that I should enlist the help of a copyeditor as there is a possibility that it could be good enough for A or FA class. I personally am not terribly experienced with writing decent articles, and if the article does pass GA it would be a first for me. If you are too busy or don't feel like copyediting the article then I completely understand; it is up to you. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In principle, I'll have a look at it eventually, if I get time between cleaning up the flurry of messy edits and vandalism to all the Olympic swimming articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
For prose it looks fine for GA and A, easily. Of course if you want to go for FAC it might need some more copyediting, but you can launch a GA/A review now and it should pass pretty easily. Although I would suggest removing some of the full date links because they aren't required and sometimes crowd out the page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to have a look. As I stated above, I have already nominated it for GA; I'm just waiting for someone willing to assess the article. Whenever you do get the time, would you please be able to give the article a copyedit for FA? If you don't have the time, or don't feel like doing so then you don't have to. Thank you once again, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I don't do GA reviews on Australian articles anymore, unless it is to fail them, because I tried to rally everyone last year to help make it to 100 Aussie GAs so I felt I would be tempted to make soft reviews for the sake of the milestone. But sure, I'll copyedit it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Done now, and that was fairly hard to copyedit, because I thought it was well written and didn't have anything much that could be obviously improved. I think you could've gone striaght to FAC and done a copyedit on the run. You've been doing heaps of great work on Australian military articles. Well done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for the late reply (Summer break!). The article looks good to me; only a couple of minor points. It might help to explain (or link if something appropriate exists) what a blacksmith's striker and a contract rabbiter are, and the MoS has recently deprecated date-linking - although it's left to editor discretion, it's now informally discouraged. Another interesting article! All the best, EyeSerenetalk07:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Very kind of you! However, I don't actually write much; my only solo effort, Military simulation, is rather flawed, and failed its GA nomination back in 2006 (although ironically that's what got me into the GA WikiProject in the first place). It's one of those things I'd love to rewrite someday... if I can find the time ;) EyeSerenetalk11:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ribbons
"Why is it that ... " - Is that a genuine question, a rhetorical question, or a statement of frustration that I don't agree with you? I suspect one of the latter two, in which case it doesn't really matter what I say, because I have recently gained the impression that these days you are not really very interested in anything that doesn't match your own opinion.
"Why is it that when I remove INCORRECT ribbons you insist on re-adding them with a comment along the lines that I am wrong?" - Because I have some evidence suggesting that you are wrong, but you never seem to supply any evidence of anything. You just make categoric statements about what you "know".
"I happen to know that the vast majority of the ribbons added are either not complete or are incorrect." - Well that's interesting, because I have plenty of evidence to suggest that there are very few errors. As for completeness, I can't comment, but so what?
"Neville Howse was not awarded the King's South Africa Medal; I have seen his medal set and that was not among them." - I have seen Peter Badcoe's so called medal set; it was far from complete. That doesn't mean he wasn't awarded other medals, it just means the set is not complete. Did you check the London Gazette entries for Howse?
"Thomas Axford was not eligible for the 1939-1945 Star" - Really? That's not how I interpreted the regulations. I shall read them again, but as I said, the way I interpreted the regulations, it seemed clear to me that he was.
"both Howse's and Axford's ribbons are incomplete." - Your point being?
"I also did not appreciate the comment you left in the edit summary ... " - I did not appreciate the fact that you removed all reference to Dechaineux's DSC, and made a statement which sounded like you were saying he had not been awarded a DSC when, quite obviously and unambiguously, he most certainly was awarded a DSC. Further, you said there was no supporting evidence when again, quite clearly, the supporting reference was there in the article.
"why would I correct the ribbon when I do not support the venture?" - Why would you ask me to answer questions about your motivations? How would I know what your motivations are? However, given the little that I do know about your motivations, one reason might be that you wanted the information on WP to be correct. Simply removing the information looks like the action of a vandal or a spoiled child. However, as I know you are not the first, and hope you are not the second, I return to: How would I know what your motivations are?
"I would appreciate it if you would cease from leaving demeaning comments in edit summaries" - I would appreciate it if you would cease making unexplained edits. I have been bringing this to your attention for months, and I have been politely asking you to explain your edits. You seem to steadfastly refuse to explain your edits. Whilst you continue to not explain yourself clearly, I will almost certainly continue to not understand what you are doing, and/or why you are doing it. Hence, it is possible that I may mis-understand your motivations. And also, I will probably continue to ask WHY you are doing what you are doing. I find it very sad that you had to decide that one of my questions was "demeaning"; from my point of view I was puzzled and confused by the inconsistency between your cryptic comments and your actions. If you had explained yourself clearly, then I would not have been puzzled and confused. What I find even sadder is that it actually motivated you to make an attempt to explain yourself.
"and actually investigate if a person received or was eligible for certain medals before adding them to pages" - And now it's my turn to complain about you making demeaning comments. From previous conversations with you, I would have thought it was very clear to you that I do considerable investigation before adding ANYTHING to any page on WP. I certainly don't appreciate you making a statement like that, particularly when you should know it to be grossly inaccurate.
So, for your future information, unless you clearly explain your actions, I will probably continue to ask you to clearly explain your actions. This current state of affairs really isn't necessary, and I expect that better communication would make life more pleasant for both of us. We have worked together quite amicably and successfully in the past; I can't see any good reason why we can't continue to do so in the future. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If you do know of errors and/or omissions, but are not willing to make the corrections yourself, I would appreciate being advised of them, particularly if you have some evidence that I can quote in the article. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I clearly remember this happening, and it made the news because it was considered very inappropriate for a governor (let alone their spouse) to be effectively asking for a knighthood; such communications, if made at all, should have been made privately, not publicly. Anyway, I've searched but can't find any reference to it online. If you want to delete my post, I'd have no objections. One day, though, it will turn up, and I will be vindicated. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're keen to keep your assessing skills honed, we are currently very short of reviewers for Milhist A-Class reviews. Broadly, the five A-Class criteria are just beefed up versions of the B-Class criteria and anyone with B-Class experience should have no trouble with them. Also, as a reminder, in the wide-ranging A-Class review, it is not necessary to comment on all five criteria: if you're short of time, you can simply focus on the aspects that interest you (sources, comprehensiveness, prose, graphic content or whatever). You can track which articles are up for A-Class using this template:{{WPMILHIST A-Class Review alerts}}
Easiest and best is to start in little nibbles. Concentrate on one aspect and just comment on that. As you get more familiar and comfortable with the process do more! The longest journey, as they say, starts with just a single step (though I'm not quite what that means in this context :))
Thanks for your message. I've given it a quick copy-edit, and delinked the dates. The intro pars needs refs for FAC (use multi-cite?). As a final thing, you may want to ask either EyeSerene or AnnaFrance to give it the once over for MoS compliance and any little prose awkwardnesses they pick up. Otherwise, looks good to go! --ROGER DAVIEStalk10:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abraham, B.S.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
