Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Park Woods/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2019 [1].

James Park Woods[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woods is the latest instalment in my slow-burn project to get all of the South Australian Victoria Cross recipients to FA. It has recently been updated with the latest scholarship, and has previously gone through Milhist A-Class review and GAN before that. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The VC image has two alts
  • File:Victoria_Cross_MOD_45147516.jpg needs a tag for the medal itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed I believe. Thanks for reviewing, Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Just a minor comment. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • but was rejected due to his height of 163 centimetres (5 ft 4 in) Hmm at the time Australia didn't use SI-units.
  • Hey sorry PM I little forgot this one my apologies. It's a tottaly support from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article. The only point I can comment on is the number of "United Kingdom"s: after the first mention it can be changed to the UK (or even Britain). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality and reliability: no issues. The sources appear to meet all the requirements for quality and reliability to meet the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces" reads a little oddly. It suggests that Woods is a "force". 'to members of ...' perhaps? I understand the convention, but am thinking of the "lay" reader.
  • "In early 1918, Woods was hospitalised for several months before rejoining his unit in May. He again reported sick in July, and did not return to the 48th Battalion until mid-August." Optional: I found this unnecessary detail for the lead.
  • "not gone forward to the their objective"
  • "Woods was a member of a four-man patrol that attempted". Optional: 'a four-man patrol of which Woods was a member attempted ...'
  • "after height restrictions were lowered" "were" -> 'had been'?
  • "United Kingdom (UK)" See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Exceptions.
  • "The 48th Battalion was relieved from this position on 1 October" Optional: I note that "this position" has been referred to as "positions" a little earlier.
  • "That evening it marched to trenches on Westhoek Ridge, where it received orders for a major attack by the division. The First Battle of Passchendaele was fought on 12 October." Possibly 'That evening it marched to trenches on Westhoek Ridge, where it received orders for a major attack by the division: the First Battle of Passchendaele, which was fought on 12 October.'?
  • "but with its left flank unprotected, the second counterattack pushed the 48th Battalion back to its start line" This needs to be 'but with its left flank unprotected, 48th Battalion was pushed back to its start line by the second counterattack.' or the suggestion is that it is "the second counterattack" which has "its left flank unprotected".
  • "before the battalion occupied a few weeks at a camp near Péronne" There is nothing wrong with this per se, but the use of "occupied" in a military article to not mean Military occupation may be confusing. (I had to read it three times to realise that it wasn't a typo.)
  • "at which time the battalion was in a rest area at Rivery." "at" twice. Possibly "at which time" -> 'when'?
  • "Reinforcements arrived as he got down to his last few rifle cartridges" Optional: "as he got" -> 'when he was'.
  • "the post was eventually secured by dawn" Delete "eventually".
  • Note a: Should "South Australian Births, Deaths and Marriages" be in italics?
I wondered. It was a genuine query. Learnt something. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A great little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I reckon this is about done. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom, please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_Park_Woods/archive1&oldid=898796521"