Talk:Stuart Clarence Graham/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the

nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Initial comments/suggestions
  • typo: "Born in 1920 he graduating" --> "graduated";
    • Done.
  • second commas: usually required after "place, state" constructions, e.g. "Ulmarra, New South Wales" should have a comma after "Wales";
    • Done.
  • is there any information on who his parents were? Names, occupation, etc.?
  • I suggest splitting this sentence as it is a bit involved: "After joining the Australian Army in January 1938,[3] in August 1940 he graduated from the Royal Military College, Duntroon (RMC) at the age of 19 into the Armoured Corps as a regular officer in the Permanent Military Force (PMF) with the rank of lieutenant, following the outbreak of the Second World War";
  • "transfering to the Second Australian Imperial Force" --> maybe explain why, e.g. so he could deploy overseas (the regular army was under the same provisions as the Militia at that time, which essentially meant that they could not be deployed beyond the immediate region";
  • "adjutant": perhaps add a wikilink here for those that don't know what that means;
    • Done.
  • "before being attached to the British Army in the North Africa and Italy,[1] including service with the British 7th Armoured Division in 1943–1944" --> "before being attached to the British Army. Serving with the British 7th Armoured Division, he saw action with them in the North Africa and Italy 1943–1944.[1]"
    • Done.
  • "warfare,[3] while his service in North Africa" --> "warfare;[3] his service in North Africa..."
    • Done.
  • "Seconded to the infantry as officer commanding C Company, 24th Battalion..." --> "Seconded to the infantry, in December 1944 he was given command of a company within the 24th Battalion. With them, he went on to... " Then later introduce 'C' Company, e.g. "During an action on the morning of 17 April, Graham's company, 'C' Company, encountered..."
    • Done.
  • be careful of using the word "had" as it can confuse tense. For instance, "Graham's company had encountered..." is a little awkward and passive, but "Graham's company encountered" puts the reader in the moment;
    • Done.
  • "Personally leading the attack, Graham used a number..." Be careful with this one, also. While I know he couldn't possibly have fired those guns himself, lay readers might link your two clauses and deduce that he pulled the lanyards on these guns. Perhaps, "Under the cover of a number of anti-tank guns, Graham personally led the attack across the river..."
    • Slightly tweaked this now - what do you think?
  • "heavy fighting which resulted in heavy Japanese casualties" --> probably best to change "which" to "that" here;
    • Done.
  • typo: "during the Australian advance continued along" --> "as the Australian advance continued along"
    • Done.
  • "Armoured School between 1953–1956" --> "Armoured School between 1953 and 1956";
    • Done.
  • " developed a sound operational concept". I wonder if in text attribution shouldn't be used here. For instance, who described his operational concept as sound, e.g. "and developed what historian Joe Bloggs has described as "a sound operational concept";
    • Done.
  • typo: "power was severly limited" --> "power was severely limited"
    • Done.
  • best to add non breaking spaces to the dates to prevent them from splitting across lines: "During Operation Leeton (6 March – 1 June)" (for instance 16 March – 1 June);
    • Done.
  • probably best to split this sentence: "Although in keeping with the orthodoxy of Australian counter-insurgency doctrine, this strategy ultimately proved both controversial and costly for the Australians, and despite initial success, the minefield became a source of munitions for the Viet Cong and later the decision was made to remove it amid growing casualties";
    • Done.
  • "cutting gaps in the fence and clearing lanes through the minefield to restore the flow of supplies, as well as lifting mines for their own use". You hint later in the paragraph that South Vietnamese forces failed to protect it, but I wonder if it shouldn't be introduced earlier that Graham was relying upon them to do so?
    • Probably. I will have a think about how to do this.
      • Not sure about this. I guess I trying to highlight how many of these issues were only apparent after the fact by wording it this way. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also I don't want the article to focus on the barrier minefield, which is really a topic in itself. Anyway I'll wait for your comments on this. Anotherclown (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I can see merit in being brief. It would probably make an article by itself. Anyway, what about something like this, "However, recognising the threat that the obstacle posed to them and finding it ill protected by the South Vietnamese forces stationed along it, the Viet Cong had immediately begun attempting to penetrate it. Cutting gaps in the fence and clearing lanes through the minefield, they restored the flow of supplies. They were also able to lift many of the mines for their own use." AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I completly reordered this section now to try and demonstrate cause and effect per your comments above. Last minute change - sorry. Does this work? Anotherclown (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet such flaws were not immediately obvious though and by the..." I suggest cutting out "though" as it is not really needed here;
    • Done.
  • "handed over command in October 1967, with 1 ATF having conducted 32 operations during his tour of duty" --> "handed over command of 1 ATF in October 1967. During his tour of duty, the force conducted 32 operations,[4] and Graham was later..."
  • "army officers" --> "Army officers" (defacto proper noun as it refers to a specific army)
    • Done.
  • this is a very busy sentence which I had a little trouble understanding: "Graham was ultimately forced to defend his decision, while questions were raised about the knowledge and approval of the decision of the tactical commander by a number of senior army officers, including then Commander Australian Forces Vietnam, Major General Tim Vincent, the Chief of General Staff (CGS), Lieutenant General Thomas Daly, and the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, General John Wilton, all of whom had acquiesced to its construction". Perhaps split and reword slightly. (e.g. who raised the questions, Vincent et al, or were questions raised about Vincent et al's knowledge of the decision?);
    • Not really sure how - the concerns were raised in the media and but a range of officers, including former and subsequent Comd 1 ATF, Bn comds and engineers et al. Qs were raised about Vincent, Daly and Wilton's knowledge and approval of Graham's decision. I think this is clear but am happy to discuss further. I agree its a long sentence. I'll come back to this.
      • I've added a little bit more in an earlier paragraph about some of the opposition to the plan. Although this probably doesn't deal with the concerns you highlight here. Still thinking about this. Anotherclown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The earlier stuff you've added is good, but I'm still not quite sure what is being said. Maybe it is me and I'm reading too much into it. Anyway, Are you saying that Vincent, Daly and Wilton were the ones who raised the questions or were they the ones about whom the questions were raised? If the latter, perhaps this might work: "Graham was ultimately forced to defend his decision when questions were raised in the media about whether it had been approved by senior commanders, including then Commander Australian Forces Vietnam, Major General Tim Vincent, as well as the Chief of General Staff (CGS), Lieutenant General Thomas Daly, and the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, General John Wilton, all of whom had acquiesced to its construction". If the former, then perhaps "Graham was ultimately forced to defend his decision when questions were raised in the media by several senior commanders about whether or not Graham had sought approval for his decision from the senior tactical commander, INSERT NAME HERE (I wasn't sure who this was based on the sentence). These questions came from officers including then Commander Australian Forces Vietnam, Major General Tim Vincent, as well as the Chief of General Staff (CGS), Lieutenant General Thomas Daly, and the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, General John Wilton, all of whom had acquiesced to its construction." AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh dear, this must be really badly worded. Neither of these interpretations is quite what I intended! Essentially the questions were raised about Vincent, Daly and Wilton's level of knowledge and acquiesence in the tactical commander's (Graham) decision to lay the minefield and whether or not they too were accountable for the decision. Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps reorder/word this: "and during this time Graham unsuccessfully argued for the retention of national service following the eventual Australian withdrawal from Vietnam in order to further expand the Regular Army" (for instance "and during this time Graham unsuccessful sought to retain national service following Australia's withdrawal from Vietnam, arguing that it was necessary to further expand the Regular Army");
    • Done.
  • "He was later involved in managing" --> based on advice around Milhist, it is best to avoid the word involved. As such, perhaps try: "Nevertheless, he later managed...";
  • repetition: "He subsequently filled the position of head of the Australian Defence Staff in London over the period 1974–1976.[40] Graham was subsequently" (subsequently and subsequently);
    • Done.
      • And another (I'm almost as bad with "meanwhile"). Anotherclown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • add a comma after "nature of the insurgency in Phuoc Tuy Province";
    • Done.
  • in the References, per
    MOS:ALLCAPS
    even if the source presents its title in all capitals, it should be converted to title case. For instance, "GRAHAM, Maj-Gen. Stuart Clarance" --> "Graham, Maj-Gen. Stuart Clarance" for the Who's Who entry. Same same with the ACT Memorial
    • Done.
  • in the References, title case: "Strategic Command: General Sir John Wilton and Australia’s Asian wars" --> "Strategic Command: General Sir John Wilton and Australia’s Asian Wars";
    • Done.
  • in the References, where you have locations that are "minor" e.g. Crows Nest and St Leonards, convention at FAC has been to add the state; there is apparently no need for the state capitals because they are sufficiently well known;
    • Done.
  • you can make the hyperlinks for the short citations clickable by adding "|ref=harv" to the cite book templates;
    • Done.
  • I think you are trying to make the link in the last a couple of sentences between the "disaster" and Graham not attaining the top job. It doesn't quite flow, in its current form, I think. Perhaps try, "Lockhart argued that the decision ultimately cost Graham the position of CGS, even though he had been seen by some as being the likely candidate to replace Daly. He went on to describe Graham as..." AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair call - I'll have to think about how to do this. Will come back to this and a couple of other comments above. Anotherclown (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technical review
  • No issues.
Criteria
  • tweaks made as per above.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • Good quality sources used, all information appears cited.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • No issues.
  • It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • No issues.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have
    fair use rationales
    )    : d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • I'm happy with your changes and I believe that this article meets the GA criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for the review - I have made a few more changes since you finalised the review so if you could pls check them that would be greatly appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, they look good. At least it gave me something to break up the day. I think I have three of those "reports" to write on Monday, and I haven't yet come off duty. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bugger - sometimes we're guilty of over reporting though so be careful not to make more work for yourself if you can! Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stuart_Clarence_Graham/GA1&oldid=510240739"