# Talk:Hubert Conway Rees

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hubert Conway Rees/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 16:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I will do this one. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Lead

Suggest postnoms template to follow his name
That would be against the MoS as currently written (MOS:POSTNOM: "post-nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence"), though a change to this is under discussion - Dumelow (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware this is against the MoS as it stands. Zawed (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
No mention of CMG
Added - Dumelow (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Early life and career

The lead mentions that he was a subaltern during the Boer War, but that is not explicitly stated here. The mention of him being a lieutenant is afterwards.
Good point.  The source isn't clear on what capacity he served so I have deleted the mention of "subaltern" in the lead - Dumelow (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Suggest linking commission to Commission (document)
Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Suggest linking the ranks on first mention
Done (I think I got them all!) - Dumelow (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
First World War

 Rees had a bullet strike his rifle stock and another cut the strap of his water bottle.: from my source checks, I see that Rees is the source of this info, so shouldn't be in Wikivoice. Suggest "Rees later reported that he had a bullet..." or similar
Good point, done - Dumelow (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Rees won the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) during this action...: I've been pinged in the past on my own articles for the "won" terminology, it doesn't sit well with some. Suggest rewording the sentence to focus on the action, then refer to him being awarded the DSO for the action, and put refs 4 and 7 together.
Yes, I think I have come across this before.  I think it's common in British English to say "won" an award but not in US English where it has more of a meaning of "won a lottery" rather than "earnt by his actions".  Changed - Dumelow (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
The award of the DSO was made on 9 November 1914.: suggest "was announced on 9 November."
I've changed the wording here as part of the bullet point above - Dumelow (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Ref 7 doesn't work (I get an error message)
Fixed, it should have linked to the Edinburgh Gazette, not the London one - Dumelow (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Although the attacks were repelled some 95% of the 1,200 men...: later it says 600 men at the start of the action but perhaps it includes another unit? The 1st of the Queen's Royals?
Not sure if it was just them or another unit.  I've reworded to try to make it clearer - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
 (almost 600 men and 16 officers were killed, wounded or missing).: this seems redundant since you also state the number of survivors.
Agreed and removed - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
besides Rees, and 25 men: suggest "besides Rees, and 25 men at its end".
I've reworded this as part of the above actions, let me know if you think it could still be better - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Rees requested a posting in Britain,: to avoid repetitive language, suggest "Rees requested a transfer to Britain,"
Agreed and done - Dumelow (talk)
almost from nothing.: suggest "almost from nothing after the action at Gheluvelt Chateau."
Agreed and done - Dumelow (talk)
Brigadier-general

In the 2nd para, there are several mentions of 1917 which aren't necessary since the year has already been already established
Removed every "1917" after the first - Dumelow (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Other stuff

No dupe links
Image tag OK - Non-free use appropriate
References look to be RS. Spotchecks: ref 2, 6 OK in respect of his liet, cap promotions; ref 1, 2 OK in respect of numbers of British and losses at Gheluvelt Chateau; ref 13 OK for brig-gen promotion; ref 3 OK in respect of feelings meeting the Kaiser and being photographed. Ref 15 may to be the wrong page? Note 16 is wrong LG (from the year 1791); Note 20 should be across 2 pages, not one.
Fixed ref 15 (it should have been page 17).  For ref 16 I had used the numbers from the Edinburgh Gazette instead, now corrected to the right page of the London Gazette - Dumelow (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Issue with ref 20 missed, I fixed it myself so as to not hold things up. Zawed (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for a thorough review Zawed; if you could review my responses to your comments above when you get a chance, that'd be great - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Looks all good to me. Passing as GA as I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)