Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Chauvel/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [1].

Harry Chauvel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Harry Chauvel/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because...

Harry was a senior officer of the Australian Imperial Force who fought at Gallipoli and in the Middle Eastern theatre during the First World War. He was the first Australian to attain the rank of lieutenant general and later general, and the first to lead a corps. As commander of the Desert Mounted Corps, he was responsible for one of the most decisive victories and fastest pursuits in military history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments -- Dabs, external links and alt text all look good. Back for a proper review in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand renaming the article to Harry Chauvel, however I think it's generally accepted to include the birth name and the common name in the first line and at the top of the infobox, something along the lines of "Sir Henry George (Harry) Chauvel". Related point: I don't think "Harry" is really necessary as a Nickname in the infobox -- all Henrys get Harry, it was nothing specific to Chauvel -- besides, if we adopt my change above, Harry is there anyway.
    • But here's the problem I've been grappling with: Harry got himself knighted as Sir Harry. Hence the first line and the inscription on the painting. Perhaps we could say "Sir Harry (Henry George) Chauvel"?
      • Heh, okay, not that fussed, leave as is -- you've taken care of everything else so I'm happy -- well done! Cheers,
        • In the London Gazette entries on all three of Chauvel's knighthoods he is listed as "Henry George", not "Harry". Given that the former was also his given name at birth I think the lead should be "Sir Henry George (Harry) Chauvel". Just my two cents. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added the following to the article: At his special request, when he was conferred with vestments and accoutrements of the Order of St Michael and St George by King George V, the King dubbed him "Sir Harry" rather than "Sir Henry". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree somewhat with Ruth that the lead contains more info than necessary, however I'm a bit loath to tamper with it. The main thing I think is too detailed is Convinced that the accommodation for Australian troops on Salisbury Plain would not be ready before winter, Chauvel arranged for the Australian Imperial Force to be diverted to Egypt. There he joined his new command, the 1st Light Horse Brigade, in December. -- suggest it be shortened to In December, he joined his new command, the 1st Light Horse Brigade, in Egypt.
    • The point here is that Harry inadvertently set in train a series of events that led to Australian participation in the Gallipoli campaign. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lead, I'd prefer to alter He attempted to maintain an increasingly hollow structure to He was forced to maintain an increasingly hollow structure if that's not too strong -- "attempted" sounds to me like he was not against the idea of a hollow structure.
    • Done. I deleted "short-sighted" to make it sound less strong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, apart from these fairly minor points, the thing looks top notch: well written, comprehensively cited and nicely illustrated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• The second and third paragraphs of the lead contain too much information IMO.
• This sentence is confusing: Near Oakwood, Chauvel's troops were confronted by a crowd of around two hundred mounted sheep shearers who became agitated when the inspector in charge of the police detachment arrested four of the shearers who were wanted by the police..
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Chauvel was given the mission of escorting 10,000 head of cattle to Belfast, Mpumalanga to supply the troops in the eastern Transvaal but his force was diverted by local commanders to burning Boer homesteads sheltering Boer commandos and attacking Boer units.. awkward. Initially, Chauvel was to escort 10,000 head of cattle to Belfast, Mpumalanga, to supply the troops in the eastern Transvaal. The local commanders reassigned his force to burn homesteads sheltering Boer commandos and skirmishing with Boer units.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Chauvel returned to find himself an officer in the newly formed Australian Army. Awkward Upon his return, Chauvel became an officer in the newly-formed...
  • No that's not right. Re-worded to "When Chauvel returned to Australia he found that while he was away he had become an officer in the newly formed Australian Army." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• what is a substantive lt. colonel?
  • As opposed to a temporary, local or brevet one. Put in a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• he developed protocols, he developed training guidelines, whatever. He didn't develop views to do something.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mentioned in Dispatches probably needs an explanation for general readers. It might not be capitalized also.
  • It has a link. (Used lower case now.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone said I'm missing an MID. Added it in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Battle of Magdhaba. If he ordered a withdrawal, and the order was refused, and the battle won anyway, how is this a credit to him?
  • It was his plan of battle. added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All for now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC) :Oh, and btw, I fixed a couple of verb conjugations and an incomplete sentence. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Made a few corrections, but otherwise excellent biography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In principle Support - Similar comments to Sturmvogel 66. There are a few loose ends, and I have a left some questions at User talk:Hawkeye7, but in my mind there is no doubt that the quality of this article is WAY above "average". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I see nothing holding this article back. Good work IMO. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Is there any reason given for why he switched from SGS to TGS. It seems as though he must have boarded in any case so family location doesn't seem to be the reason but it seems odd why he would transfer to a lesser school unless his parents ran out of money?? Spotted a stray hyphen :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sydney was a day school so Harry and his brothers Arthur and James Allan boarded with a Mrs Armstrong. Harry was pulled out of school in April 1876 but readmitted in July, for reasons unknown. The brothers stayed until the end of the 1880 school year. The boys rode their horses the 150 miles to TGS and kept them there during the term instead of taking the boat to Sydney. His brother Arthur went to TGS in June 1880. No idea why though. However, having done so, it would have been cheaper to send both boys to the same school. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- another fine article. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes: I found a lot fo WP:OVERLINKing-- please review throughout. Also, please see WP:MOS#Captions-- sentence fragments should not have final punctuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a pass over it, as has another editor. Also found two spelling errors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.