- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(
- Comment or view
- Article history
)
... that retired Royal Navy Rear Admiral Gerald Marescaux served as a British Army colonel during the First World War? Source: "Rear- Admiral Gerald C. A. Marescaux,Royal Navy, to be temporary Lieutenant-'Colonel. Dated 8th November, 1914." from: "No. 29052". The London Gazette (Supplement). 26 January 1915. p. 899."GENERAL LIST: The undermentioned relinquish their commns. on completion of service: Temp. Cols., and retain the rank .of Col. : ... G. C. A. Marescaux, C.B., C.M.O. 8th June 1919" from: "No. 32153". The London Gazette. 3 December 1920. p. 12040.- ALT1: ... that Vice-Admiral Gerald Marescaux was reprimanded whilst captain of HMS Europa in 1909 for wearing pyjamas when meeting with members of his crew? Source: The quote from the article is " Returning to Europa, later in the year he was censured by the Admiralty for "most unsatisfactory conduct" after he interviewed his officer of the watch and signal bosun in his cabin while wearing only his pyjamas" I don't have the source which is: Deasey, David (September 2022). "Vice-Admiral T.B. Drew". Le Grognard! (2022/9). The Military Historical Society of Australia ACT Branch: 11–15. but it was added by a reputable user
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hume-Bennett Lumber Company
Moved to mainspace by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) and Dumelow (talk). Nominated by Dumelow (talk) at 23:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Article was created yesterday so it meets DYK requirements for nomination. It is of sufficient length and is free from close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. I'm only approving the second hook as the first hook's significance may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with militaries, but also because the pyjamas angles is simply more intriguing. I'm assuming good faith for the sourcing here since I can't access the actual reference here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gerald Marescaux/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I have no idea what "particular service" is.
- Neither do I! Hopefully a source will come up some day which expands on that service.
- Any idea why his son changed his name?
- No. Was quite commonly done upon the receipt of an inheritance though.
- I added an image. Too bad we can't find his wife's portrait.
- Yes, I've no doubt it still exists, but whether it gets digitised is another question!
Source review
- Sources are high quality.
- Spot checks:
- 64: okay
- 6, 8, 16, 31, 39 52, 60, 75 : Assume good faith on offline sources
- fn 12 looks odd with the low page number coming second. Check that a larger number is not intended.
- Double checked. It is correct.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- I am not much good at grammar myself, and generally rely on others to correct my work. I have made a series of changes related to comma usage, but feel free to revert where you disagree. I found the use of "in the ship" jarring, as I would always say "on the ship" but did not change this, as you're an Englishman with a double-barrel nick, and therefore acquainted with the language, and I am just an Aussie ex-Customs officer.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Two images, both correctly licensed.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- All good. Passing.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article was created yesterday so it meets DYK requirements for nomination. It is of sufficient length and is free from close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. I'm only approving the second hook as the first hook's significance may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with militaries, but also because the pyjamas angles is simply more intriguing. I'm assuming good faith for the sourcing here since I can't access the actual reference here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)