Talk:Hugh Stewart (classical scholar)

Hugh Stewart (classical scholar) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 14, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hugh Stewart (classical scholar) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Historiography / South Pacific / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Military historiography task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	World War I task force

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh Stewart (classical scholar)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be able to get this by mid-next week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- no dab or EL issues.

Prose/content -- aside from my copyedit, a couple of things:

""... brilliant teacher of abundant energy and wit" -- this should be attributed inline but in any case is a little problematic as Crawford is clearly quoting someone else but we don't know who. I suggest re-wording "he was considered to be a '... brilliant teacher of abundant energy and wit'" to "he acquired a reputation for his energy and wit" or something similar.

Reworded as suggested. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"nominal commander" reads a bit oddly, as though he wasn't ever the formation's real commander -- do we mean " regular commander" or some such?

Have reworded this section due to finding new source material. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Stewart had been mentioned in despatches five times" -- for GA I think this summary is fine but if you take the article to A/FA I think these should be separately mentioned (pun unintended) and cited (to the London Gazette presumably).

Understood. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You hyphenate "pre-war" in text but not "Postwar" in the header -- not that fussed which way you go (it'd be an EngVar question) but should at least be consistent throughout the article.

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Structure -- aside from what I felt were two short sections in need of merging, no concerns.

Images -- licensing looks okay.

Referencing

Formatting-wise, suggest link all 'linkable' publishers or none.

Removed publisher link. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that New Zealand and The Distinguished Service Order is self-published -- how do we know it's a reliable source?

The book is essentially a series of brief bios which are little more than birth dates, promotions, units and commands. I believe it is reliable as it is based on primary records. You will see I have found new source material which has reduced my reliance on this source anyway. Unfortunately, there are still a couple of points which I can't source elsewhere, at this stage at least. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look at this Ian. I believe I have addressed your points and happy to discuss the self-published source further if need be. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's okay, the only remaining cites to it are non-controversial. It might come up at A/FA but I think it's fine at GA-level, so happy to pass. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, a quick postscript -- I think the convention has always been we only mention rank first up in the lead for 1-stars and above, so the lt-col should probably go. If you want to add the rank somewhere else in the lead (e.g. that he finished the war with that rank) I'll leave it to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I have revised the lead. Thanks again! Zawed (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]