Talk:Walter Peeler/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  Completed my usual copyedit but a few other points:

  Infobox: Don’t really see a need to link “Victoria, Australia” in successive lines...

  True, but it is rather a habit I have acquired, and I like consistency. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Intro: ...and accounted for more than 30 German soldiers in the battle... Just a thought, but “accounted for” may not be clear to everyone as meaning “killed” (or indeed was it killed outright or simply “put out of action”...?)

  Killed. I was afraid this issue might arise. Clarified. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Structure: Given “Early life” and “Interbellum” are just single paragraphs at this stage, I’d strongly consider combining with the First and Second World War sections that follow them, unless you plan to expand them between now and FAC. Also, while technically probably quite correct, anything with “bellum” in it evokes the American Civil War for me – I think the tried and tested “Inter-war years” or “Between the wars” works better here if a separate section, or else “Interregnum and Second World War” if all in one (as in Eric Harrison (RAAF officer)).

  I think I have pretty much exhausted all available sources on Peeler, so further expansion on these areas is unlikely. I did originally have the info on his inter-war years and service in the Second World War combined in a single section. However, as the Second World War info began to grow I thought it best to separate the sections, as the information on his life between the wars would have been dwarfed by that of his service. This is primarily why I am reluctant to integrate these sections, as the information would be, basically, dwarfed and overwhelmed by his service in the wars, lessening the importance of his life prior to and during the wars, so I think it would be best to retain them as distinct, separate sections. Heh, I was once informed by another editor that "interbellum" conjured thoughts exactly on the period between the two World Wars for them, explicitly relating to that period. I think I'll leave it as "Interbellum" for now, though I will think about changing it to one of your suggestions. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Understand your rationale about separate Early Life and Interbellum sections due to the much larger size of the war sections, however I'd still say “Inter-war years” or “Between the wars” are more commonly associated with the time between the world wars, whereas I had no problem with "Interbellum" for the time between WWII and Korea in your Otto Becher article, since I wouldn't say there's any common terms for that. The GA doesn't stand or fall on all this, but I reserve the right to bring it up at ACR and see if it sparks any discussion there... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  First World War: Was being reduced to private the extent of his punishment following the GCM?

  Basically. There were mentions of a "reprimand" by his CO, though the way the documents were written I'm not too sure if it was relating to this incident, or possibly even Peeler at all! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing from Macklin's Bravest?

  Only in the list of Australian Victoria Cross recipients at the back. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It follows the
  neutral point of view
  policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have

  fair use rationales

  ):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  Very good as usual, if I could just get a response to the above points then I'll be happy to pass it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks very much for the thorough review and copyedit, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No prob, that's a pass - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]