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 02:32, 31 January 2009 [1].

Bruce Kingsbury[edit]

Nominator(s): » \ / (⁂ | ※)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it has met the criteria. It has been rated as an A-Class article my the WP:MILHIST Wikiproject, is stable, and the prose has undergone adequate scrutiny. Well cited, illustrated with free imagery, a worthy article. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 10:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images check out fine; they are from Australian War Memorial and are in the public domain according to Crown copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added date, removed non Reliable source, but I am confused by your first point. Are the inline citations using both Harvnb and Cite Web not acceptable? Or was it referring to the cite web in the references (which has since been resolved). » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You use the ((cite web)) in the short notes, but {[tl|citation)) in the references. The two template "families" give inconsistent output, and shouldn't be combined in the same article. If you switch the ((cite web)) to ((citation)) in the notes, you'll be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I think I understand you. The citations in the references are now all using the citation template. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's the footnotes/notes (the little numbered things you get from the <ref></ref> tags that are using the ((cite web)) and that need to use ((citation)). This is one of those MOS things that are picky but need to be done for the pesky parts of the FA criteria, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Sorry for the confusion. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! Got it. It's one of those things that first time nominators often have confusion with, so no worries. You got it, and now you know about it for your next FAC! Good luck! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the page numbers, I originally had the citations for that broken up into sections, but somewhere along the line it was merged. The whole book is about Kingsbury and Avery, so page number's wouldn't be all that useful. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the page numbers is to know exactly where a certain piece of information came from in a book. May I suggest having a look at a previous version of the article and breaking the cite up again with each of the individual page numbers? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also followed the instructions SandyGeorgia gave in regards to dashes and c., and couldn't find any additional errors. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition / statement of the obvious in the first line, i.e. "an Australian soldier who served in the Australian Army..."
  • "Although he fought in the Middle East, Kingsbury is renowned for his actions during the Battle of Isurava..." Why "Although"? Many Australian soldiers fought first in ME, then the Pacific.
  • "Due to the bravery shown during the battle, Kingsbury..." Surely "his bravery" works better, and "shown" is redundant.
  • "...on Australian soil..." "Australian territory" is more appropriate.
  • "...have been identified as what undoubtedly saved the Battalion Headquarters..." "Undoubtedly" is over the top, and the expression here in general could be snappier.
There's more, so I was tempted to just be bold and copyedit the whole thing in the article itself but instead I've done so in my sandbox here (or view the diffs here). Please have a read and see whether some or all of it looks like an improvement. If so, I'll go through the rest of the article to suggest further improvement as necessary, or I'd be happy to just go ahead and copyedit direct, if you'd prefer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. After reading the draft I would agree it is an improvement; if you have enough time to go through the entire article I'd be quite appreciative. I'm fine if you edit it directly - it's not mine. ;) Thanks again! » \ / (⁂) 10:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool, will get that done soon. It's very good re. structure, refs, supporting materials and so on, so after copyediting I'll be happy to offer my support as well (with proviso that I've become a minor contributor to it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - pls let me know if you think I've wrongly altered the meaning of anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly good work! Thank you very much! » \ / (⁂) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, you did the tough job. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More