Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alfred Shout/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2017 [1].

Alfred Shout[edit]

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a little while since my last FAC, but I think this one is up to scratch. Shout was a New Zealand-born soldier and Australian Victoria Cross recipient of the First World War. Commissioned into the AIF not long after its formation, Shout took part in the Gallipoli invasion on 25 April 1915, was awarded the Military Cross for his "conspicuous courage and ability" over the next two days, and soon after Mentioned in Despatches. His VC was posthumously awarded for his actions at Lone Pine in August 1915 – after Ottoman forces had recaptured a section of trench, Shout twice led small parties of men to clear them out. He was mortally wounded when a bomb he was throwing exploded prematurely. Shout was the most highly decorated man in the AIF at Gallipoli, and his VC sold for a world record auction price in 2006. The article was listed as GA some months ago and recently passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review. Any and all comments welcome, and much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian -- recusing from coord duties; good to see you back, Bryce!

  • Copyedited so let me know any issues; outstanding points:
    • Shout "assisted greatly" in maintaining the position of his men... brought him back "to a place of safety"... As a result of his "great courage" -- if we use quotes I think they should be attributed inline; as it is we don't know if it's the author of the work speaking or an official despatch or something else.
Have tweaked this – let me know what you think.
    • having "served with distinction" during his time in South Africa -- as above.
Will get back to you on this one, as there is something I would like to double check with the sources.
Have cut this one – it was not really vital, and there seemed no smooth way of attributing the quote to Snelling.
    • the couple had a daughter named Florence Agnes Maud on 11 June that year -- not a biggie but I don't think we generally name children unless notable in themselves, nor worry about their exact birthdates.
Have cut the middle names and specific date of birth, but as Florence was Shout's only child I think the name and month is worth retaining.
    • Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914 for active service overseas. -- I think this sentence has one clause too many for comfort; suggest you lose either "Following the outbreak of the First World War" given the section header, or "for active service overseas" since you explain the purpose of the AIF next sentence.
Have cut the latter.
    • the "impregnable" Ottoman position at Lone Pine -- I seem to recall from my readings that it was generally considered so therefore perhaps not appropropriate to attribute to this particular source but simply to paraphrase in some fashion.
Done.
    • "bitter, savage fighting" over the next three days, predominantly in the form of "deadly bombing duels" -- since the quotes don't relate directly to Shout, I wonder if rather than attributing the first one we could just try paraphrasing; I think "deadly bombing duels" would be worth retaining if attributed.
Done.
    • Shout was fighting with "splendid gaiety" throughout the assault, "laughing and joking and cheering his men on" -- probably worth retaining the quotes with attribution.
Done – let me know what you think.
    • he remained cheerful, "drank tea and sent a message to his wife" -- if only one of the cited sources described him as cheerful I think worth attributing that, as well as the quote.
Ditto.
    • Shout was evacuated from the Gallipoli Peninsula to the hospital ship Euralia shortly afterwards. -- given this is the start of a new section, I think "shortly afterwards" needs clarification; shortly after he was wounded I assume?
Clarified.
    • Although Sasse's Sap "was never wholly regained" -- I think preferable to just paraphrase this one; we need to guard against the article becoming a quote farm.
Done.
  • Structure is straightforward and level of detail seems appropriate.
  • I'll try and look over images and referencing at some stage, if no-one beats me to it.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Ian! Much appreciated. The following are my edits: [2]. Will get back to you on the second point asap. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose. Just wanted to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a little bit but generally no probs from my perspective. I'd prefer to see Ealdgyth's response to your ping before supporting outright; if I have time I may just comb through the changes in response to her comments myself -- let's say I've no objections to promotion anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support outright following Brian's and Harry's involvement -- I think the "little is known" point was well made and a good reminder of things we have to watch for (Bryce's reassuring response was no less than I expected given his experience as an editor, but still worth hearing). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and image review by PM I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and could find little to comment on then, I've had a look at the above improvements, and believe it currently meets the FA criteria. I also checked the image licensing during ACR and they are all fine. Great job on this article and welcome back to FAC! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Okay, we have a problem with the use of the "record search" from the National Archives of Australia. These are all primary sources. And it's an 83 page file but all sorts of things are cited to the entire file. I'm pretty sure there are some problems with interpretation of the primary sources going on here - but I'm not going to freaking scroll through the entire slowly loading 83 page file trying to figure out which of the 83 pages (that take forever to load) supports each tiny bit of information. Each bit of information should be sourced at the least to a page range, but ideally to an individual page.
  • Actually I have to agree here regarding closer citation. When I've used NAA records, I tend to cite the page (as defined by NAA) or a narrow range where the information comes from across a couple of pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, will differentiate between cites. However, I will not get a chance to do so until at least this evening. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no rush. To be honest, I probably won't have a great deal of time to get back to it before Monday or Tuesday Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries – I'll let you know as soon as I am done, but it should be before then. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these sources are primary sources - embarkation rolls, the various bits of paperwork in the archival records, the Gazette mentions, etc. The extensive use of primary sources concerns me - we should be relying on secondary sources not primary. It's entirely too easy to slip into interpreting the primary sources - can none of these details be cited to secondary works instead?
  • This has not been a problem in the past, as the sources have not been 'interpreted' to make an argument. Rather, in almost every case they have been used alongside secondary sources to provide slight additional detail, such as a specific date. Indeed, the embarkation roll is backed up by Snelling and, while all of Shout's awards can be verified by basically any of the secondary sources used here, the London Gazette provides the date of announcement and a complete and accurate rendering of his VC citation (though this does appear in Staunton and others too). Further, as every single one of the records are freely accessible and available online, there is not really a verifiability issue (excepting perhaps the above, which will be addressed shortly). To be honest, you'd be hard pressed to find an FA-level article on an Australian military figure that does not use similar sourcing. As for the London Gazette, this article features just four entries – compare this case to Richard Dannatt and Donald Hardman (both FAs, the latter promoted just last month), which make use of dozens, though in a similar method for a similar reason. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that it isn't clear from the way you reference what the additional details ARE. An example: "Information on Alfred Shout's early life is rather scant, and the details differ between sources. It is believed that he was privately educated in his youth and," is sourced to the records search (page 1) AND to Snelling. What part of the two sentences comes from the records search? There IS interpretation in this sentence - is Snelling supporting the first bit? Even if the records search is just supporting the "privately educated" ... that phrase is actually "it is believed" which is interpreting the primary source document (which is emphatic about him being privately educated on page 1). Another example: "He then joined the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop, and served with the unit until the Boer War ended in 1902." ... which is sourced to three sources: the records search which says that he served in the "Border Horse 1900-2 (Sgt)", to this source which says "Records suggest that he also served with the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop." and then this source which says "He was in South Africa when, as an eighteen year old, he joined the Border Horse and later served with the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop and the Cape Colonial Forces." None of these actually support the sentence "He then joined the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop, and served with the unit until the Boer War ended in 1902." ... what is actually happening here is that the three sources are being combined together like a historian would to come up with a synthesized statement that isn't supported by the sources.
  • Here's another "Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914." is sourced to the page 1 of the records search. But nothing on that page says anything about "following the outbreak of World War I" or that the Australian Imperial Force was "newly raised".
  • Arguably common enough not to warrant a further cite, but have added one in. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another "On 11 May, he was wounded once again, suffering a second gunshot to his arm. He was evacuated to the hospital ship HMHS Gascon but, having recovered sufficiently, rejoined his unit fifteen days later." - this is mostly supported by the source but it puts in details not covered by the primary source - the fact that HMHS is a hospital ship, that he was evacuated to the ship. Nor does the source explicitly state that the reason he returned to his unit was that he had recovered. We can assume that but it's not expressly stated.
  • A last example: this source is given as the source for "Shout was also posthumously issued the 1914–15 Star, British War Medal, and Victory Medal for his service during the First World War." but nothing in that record states whether it was posthumous or not. It just says he was awarded these awards in addition to the VC.
  • This information is covered on pages 28 and 83 – the medals were not issued until 1921. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to be a pain here, but it's difficult to use primary sources in wikipedia because it is so tempting to interpret them or add information that included in them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are the long quote from the citation for the VC, which is properly quoted and attributed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Ealdgyth! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth. Just wanted to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth. Sorry to be a pain, but I was just wondering if you had had a chance to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? I ask as the review seems to have stalled pending review of the above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Dank! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: As Ealdgyth seems unable to return to this FAC at the moment, I think we need another source reviewer to check if her concerns have been addressed. I wonder if Brianboulton could take a little look; the bulk of the review has been cleared, the issue was over the use of primary sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I'd have a look at the sourcing resolutions if I had time (which I'm afraid I haven't) but OTOH as I write similar articles using similar sourcing to Bryce it might indeed be better to have someone more removed to do the final check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Ealdgyth has not responded to a specific request on her talkpage (5 October), it is reasonable I think to assume that either she is satisfied with what's been done here, or at the very least has decided not to press her points further. I believe that, had she wished to pursue an objection, she would have let you know by now. I don't really feel that I can adjudicate on the point at issue, which seems to be whether or not the use of primary sources in this article is excessive, and in my view the sources review should be considered as completed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Sarastro1. As one of the reviewers, I don't consider that the use of primary sources in this article is excessive, they are being used to cite straightforward facts, and I think that it is a reasonable assumption that Ealdgyth is either content with the responses or doesn't wish to comment further. I believe it is ready for promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. By my count, we still only have two supports. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Sarastro1. I was (possibly incorrectly) assuming that Ian Rose was a support once Ealdgyth's concerns had been addressed re: sourcing. Which I felt they had. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • Alfred John Shout, VC, MC Comma needed after MC per MOS:POSTNOM
  • With respect, the above is not my reading of MOS:POSTNOM. The guideline notes that, if commas are used, they should appear between sets of postnominals. Nothing is mentioned about following them, and I tend to think it would be a tad redundant. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading is that it should either be "Shout, VC, MC, was" or "Shout VC, MC was", but I'm certainly not going to oppose over a comma. --HJM
  • Having skimmed Ealdgyth's comments, I have a similar concern with Information on Alfred Shout's early life is rather scant and the details differ between sources. Is that from Snelling, or is that your interpretation of the source material?
  • The vague and (slightly) differing deails are mentioned in a couple of the sources, including Snelling. However, I can cut out "and the details differ between sources", if that would be better?
  • My concern is what the sources say about what the sources say, if that makes sense. It's one thing if Bloggs 2017 says "little is known" and our article says little is known, but it's a different thing for an editor to say "little is known" because they couldn't find anything. So what does Snelling say, exactly? --HJM
  • That's fine. I just wanted to make sure we were reflecting the sources and not coming up with a novel interpretation in their absence. Happy to support now that's resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shout "assisted greatly" in maintaining Whose quote is this?
  • The citation for Shout's Mention in Despatches (via Snelling). The attribution (in text) was removed during some recent tweaks and, as I see no smooth way of reintroducing it, I have cut it back to "assisted" without quote marks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works. --HJM
  • I notice you include the description of the VC ( the highest decoration for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth armed forces) in the lead but it doesn't appear anywhere in the body.
  • The above is something of the standard speel in articles on VC recipients (a similar style is used in Medal of Honor recipients' articles, too). I don't think it really vital to include in the body, but can do so if you think it necessary. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to leave it to you. Somebody else might pick up on it but I won't hassle you for it. --HJM

Not seeing anything of major concern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, HJ Mitchell (and my apologies for the slow reply)! Much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few replies inline. I imagine I'll support once we've agreed a frame of words for the early life. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything is resolved to my satisfaction. I can't see any barriers to promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This one looks ready to go, but we have three dead links: the links to awm.gov.au do not seem to be working anymore. I think this needs to be sorted before this can be promoted. We can promote as soon as this is sorted as everything else checks out. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarastro1. The AWM recently moved their entire website and, while I updated the links before nominating for FA, it seems these three were shifted in the time since. Have updated them now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (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/Alfred_Shout/archive1&oldid=1143877325"