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 22:58, 2 January 2010 [1].

---

Walter Peeler[edit]

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Walter Peeler/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. Article on an Australian veteran of both World Wars, who was awarded the Victoria Cross in the First and became a prisoner of war to the Japanese in the Second. The article has been passed as both a Good article, and A-Class by WikiProject Military history. Ian Rose was kind enough to preform a few prose tweaks to the article, and EyeSerene a thorough copyedit of which I am immensly grateful. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name

• No dabs or dead externals (link checker warns about two links, but they're fine).
  • For some reason, the tool just doesn't like links from those sites, even though they work. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt text looks good, except...
  • Is "surrounded by a boarder" correct, or was "border" intended?
    • Yep; typo. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if the "Allegiance" in the infobox used ((flag)) instead of ((flagicon)), and if ((flag)) had customizable text. See, right now those who can't see the flag will read "Australia Commonwealth of Australia", when it should be just "Commonwealth of Australia" (the text only, after an unlinked flag without an alt). ((flag)) would do the trick if the text could be changed to "Commonwealth of Australia".
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing out Peeler's "large ears" doesn't seem right for a man who won the Victoria Cross (even if he's no longer with us). They don't look that big to me (but it may just be the image size).
    • They do look quite sizable to me in the images, especially the first ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we already know how Peeler looks by the second (or third, or fourth...) image, some of them could probably be made brief by assuming context and calling the man Peeler.
    • Well, he is identified in the actual image captions and it is easier to describe what he is wearing or such in the others so I don't see much of a problem with it. Also, they way I read that quideline, it seems to be against assuming context. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Dates throughout are consistent Day Month Year. Does the unreferenced external link at the bottom need that access date?
  • It's kind of a habit I picked up on the advice of another editor. I suppose it doesn't really need it, but if the link goes dead it may be helpful in retrevial. *Shrugs* Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I had to read Army Gas School to get the significance of "On 22 June 1918, Peeler was posted to the Corps Gas School for eight days." I thought it involved cars or petrol! Silly me. :(
  • Lol! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. --an odd name 10:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "dispatching several other German soldiers and emerging unscathed". Do you have to use the word "dispatch" when referring to killing people. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Fixed. EyeSerene^talk 09:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for tweaking that, Eye, and pointing it out MisterBee. :) I was a little concerned about the word, as it is somewhat crude and insensitive in such a context. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: A most engaging article which I enjoyed very much. I have a few nitpicks:-
  • Why the quotes around "in the face of the enemy"? It's not a quoted phrase as far as I know; the official citation refers to "most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy." (see here. I would simply remove the quotes, no need to expand the text.
    • This is a rather standard snippet in several Victoria Cross related subjects, and is a habit I have acquired. I think the distinction comes from one of the warrants relating to the VC, and is more to distinguish between it and the George Cross, which is awarded for great gallantry not in the face of the enemy. I will leave them at the moment, but have no strong feelings either way and am willing to remove the quotation marks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "November" in second lead paragraph should have a year: "November 1816"
    • I don't think this is really necessary, as just before this the year of 1916 is present, and just after June 1917 is mentioned, so it would just be repeating the year of 1916 it occured which I think is a little obvious. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Victoria Cross section): Punctuation quibble; mdashes are a rather violent way of inserting an interjection into a sentence. I don't think they are really justified in "a group of 24 men—including Peeler—from the 3rd Pioneer Battalion", and advise their replacement with humble commas.
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a few more minor points to pick up on, but no serious or obvious issues. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Well done article!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A pleasure to read. Well done. ceranthor 20:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On 10 July 1907, he wed Kathleen Emma Hewitt;[1] the couple would produce five children.[2] - erm, produce?
  • I originally had "the couple would have five children" but it got tweaked to "produce". Changed back now, though. :) Thanks very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images verifiably in public domain. Taken before 1946, their copyrights would not be renewed by the URAA. Furthermore, possible publishing of these photos during 1923–89 are in Australian books that never registered copyrights in the US; hence, it is very unlikely these photos of Peeler are ever copyrighted in the US. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.