# Talk:Hugh Stewart (classical scholar)

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)

Should be able to get this by mid-next week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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