# Talk:Harry Farr

The reference to John Laister needs amending.  If he was 101 in 2006 he would have been born in 1905 and been a member of the firing squad at the ripe old age of 11.  Seems unlikely.

The article cited was uploaded in 1999, which would have made John 18 or 19, a bit more realistic. --Ryan86 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an hour-long talk, 'Shell Shock or Cowardice?: The Case of Harry Farr' available on-line in which King's College London psychiatrist, Simon Wessely analyses the case historically: 
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=759
I think that this would be an obvious and unquestionable addition to this page. (I only don't put it up myself as there is a possible conflict-of-interest as I am connected with Gresham College, where the lecture was given). Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission gives the date of death as 18 October 1916, not 16 October - http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/751229  This is undoubtedly the right man as his Medal Index Card, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=2340893 notes that he was shot for cowardice, though to add further confusion the MIC has been indexed saying that he was 2nd Battalion, not 1st, though this could be a mistranscription.  David Underdown (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine article used as a reference [1] uses 16 October in the openeing sentence, but 18 October later in the article.  David Underdown (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harry Farr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831113229/http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/page13.html to http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/page13.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Farr/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 22:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


### Prelim
Executed by firing squad is a duplicated link in the lede
Thanks, have corrected.
No edit wars; a little vandalism but not too recent
Images are correctly licensed. No issue with it, but I'd be interested to know why you chose that particular Thiepval image?
No real reason, if you think there's a better or more appropriate image do let me know!
Earwig reports copyvio unlikely


### Lede and infobox
Per MOS:FLAGS we should avoid flags in the infobox
Fixed.
Link private in lede and infobox
Done.
Imo the first sentence of the lede would do better to say when he was executed rather than his age; we've just been given his DOB/DOD
Can do, although that means we would just be repeating the DOD?
The article and lede/infobox switches between "World War One", "World War I", and "First World War". Suggest sticking with one of these options only.
Thanks, have stuck with World War I.
The lede suggests that he served in the army from 1908 to his death, when in fact he joins the reserves in 1912. Suggest making this clearer
I've made this clearer.
If you're sticking with World War I then the "WWI" acronym needs introducing in brackets after the first mention of the full word
Suggest clarifying in the infobox and text that his service in the war was on the Western Front
I've added this in the lede, and in the infobox I've put it in the 'Battles' category - do let me know if I should change this.
I would suggest including the details from Farr's CWGC page here. It provides details like his full name being "Harry T. Farr", his service number 8871 (for the infobox), Gertrude's full name, and where the family was living during the war.
Thank you, I've added that additional info.
The Independent article provides Gertrude's maiden name (Batstone)
I remember reading somewhere that Batstone was the name Gertrude got from her second husband. This is backed up less ambiguously by this Mirror article (not the most reliable source, but I can't remember where I read that fact originally).


### Early life
Link Kensington
Done.
Do we know what unit Farr served in before 1914?
I've checked my notes and can't recall reading it anywhere. The court martial documents give his date on enlistment, but not with whom he served.
Link World War One
Done.
"Gertie was one week old when Farr left to fight in World War One" The Independent article states that "Gertie was just two when her father left for France in November 1914"?
Hmm, and the BBC article says one year old. I'll change to "a young child".


### World War One
You could link British entry into World War I to "outbreak of World War One"
Thanks, done.
Link West Yorkshire Regiment
Done.
Could be made more clear if Farr actually participated at Aubers, or if the battle is just being used to date the event (if the former, add to infobox)
The source says: "May 9, 1915, immediately after the Battle of Aubers Ridge, in which his [Farr's] battalion also took part, although there is no detailed account of their experience there". I have changed the text of the article to reflect this.
"he had suffered"
Done.
"was treated at a dressing station"
Done.
Link dressing station
Done.
" He was transferred to the 1st Battalion in October 1915." move this sentence so that the paragraph is in chronological order.
Thanks, just spotted this myself! Have moved.
"Farr was discharged from hospital and sent back to the front with the 1st Battalion" considering he only joined the 1st Battalion in October, which matches with the end of his five months in hospital, it seems that this is when he moves to the 1st Battalion for the first time
Yep, makes sense. Have changed the article to reflect that.
"On 22 July 1916" remove repeated year
Done.
"part of an assault on the German 'Quadrilateral'" this makes no sense to the casual reader. what's a quadrilateral and why are the British assaulting a German one?
I've tried to clarify this further, do let me know if you think it should be rephrased.
In one sentence you say that Farr is going to the frontline of both Flers-Courcelette and the Somme, remove one of these to lessen confusion
Done.
Your titling of the RSM is incorrect. Hanking is a serjeant-major, not a major. Use "Sergeant-Major Hanking" or "RSM Hanking" instead
That's very helpful, thanks. Have changed all instances of this.
Link medical orderly
Done.
"Medical officer" and "medical orderly" are two different things, which one did Farr see prior to his desertion?
Checked the source - it was a medical officer. Thanks! Have changed.
You move between "front line" and "frontline", choose one or the other
Have changed to "front line".
You don't need to repeat Hanking's rank after the first mention; Hanking alone will do
Thanks, have changed.
Link corporal
Done.
"Farr later testified that he could not recall any of the events which followed until after he was put under guard." this sentence seems like it would be more appropriate following on from "...was charged with cowardice" in the next paragraph
Makes sense, thanks.
Do we know what Farr did after escaping from his escort? Where was he arrested the following day?
Court martial transcript says he ran back to the transport line - I've added that.
"2 October 1916" remove repeated year
Done.
"He had to defend himself against the formal accusation of" suggest rephrasing to "He was formerly accused of..."
Done.
separate lieutenant-colonel into its own link
Done.
"Farr was unable to call a witness" does this mean he wasn't allowed to call one or he just didn't have one?
Many of the sources mention how he was unable to have the medical officer who treated him speak on his behalf. I've added that detail.
The term "prisoner's friend" needs an explanation
Have added into the footnote.
Link acting and sergeant - do we know who this sergeant was/what his position was to provide this evidence?
Have linked. The source doesn't give more info unfortunately (and see see anything further in the court documents).
Link company
Done.
"The hearing" suggest replacing with "court martial" to avoid confusion
Done.
Give Haig his full name (he was also a knight), and split out his rank which at this point was general; he was promoted to field marshal in 1917
Thanks! Have changed.
Give a brief explanation of Kitchener's army and why an influx of its members meant a decrease in morale/professionalism
Have provided a brief overview.
Give an introduction to who Wessely is, e.g. "the psychiatrist Simon Wessely..."
Done.
"fought in a particularly brutal battle" this is Flers-Courcelette, is it not?
Yep, have added in.
"Field Marshall Haig, as the Commander-in-Chief " again, Haig is not a field marshal yet
Thanks, have changed.
"The modern consensus is that Farr did not receive a fair trial" according to who? would also be useful to explain why the facts stated before this mean that the trial wasn't fair
As this is discussed at length and in more detail in the Legacy section of the article, I have removed this sentence.
"The doctor who witnessed the execution was reportedly disturbed by the event." why is this useful? the majority of people are disturbed by death.
Agreed, have removed.


### Legacy
"shot at dawn on 16th October" but the previous section dates his execution to 18 October?
Weird, that must be a mistake. Thank you for spotting. I have found the same quote in a different source with the correct date, so have changed  it to that.
"Harry Farr's execution" no need to repeat his forename
Have changed.
There's a lot of "shame" and "ashamed" in this paragraph, suggest rewording one or two
I did think that when writing it! Have changed.
"Harry Farr's death" another two repetitions of forename in this sentence
Fixed.
"Janet Booth" repeated forenames in this sentence too
Fixed.
Don't shorten PTSD to its acronym
Thanks, have changed.
Split out Justice
Done
"he believed that the family may have been incorrectly denied a pardon" can you say why exactly?
The sources don't explicitly say as far as I can see.
Link Minister of State for Veterans' Affairs
Done.
"by the story of her father"
Fixed.
"to his wrongful execution" Was the execution wrongful? It was entirely legal at the time, what they're arguing here is that the lack of a pardon was wrongful, surely
I've changed to "he committed to finding a solution for the family". Does that work?
"We are going to have to sort this out" is a useless quote
Deleted.
Say who the Secretary of State for Defence was
Done.
Link Armed Forces Act 2006
Done.
MP> member of parliament
Wikilinked.
No need to say "then" Labour MP; we don't care in this article what happens in his parliamentary career
Thanks, have changed.
"on 16 August 2006" repeated year
Fixed.
"Farr's status" what kind of status is this? Legal, military?
It would be legal, have changed.
"Field Marshall Haig"
"George Haig" is George Haig, 2nd Earl Haig; he was Haig's son not his grandson
Thanks, have changed.
"Speaking in August 2006" suggest "After the passing of the Armed Forces Bill..." instead
The Armed Forces Act came into force in November 2006. Have changed to "Speaking after the announcement of Farr's pardon, Gertie Harris expressed relief in knowing that her father had been recognised as a victim of the war, rather than a coward."
"had wrote something to his effect" > "had written something to this effect"
Oops - have changed.
"Simon Wessely" repeated forename
Fixed
Link Steve Stahl
Done


### References
The orig-date for Shephard can just be 2000, no need for the wordy explanation; ibid with Taylor
Fixed
Petersson, Putkowski and Sykes, Tomasini, Moorhouse, Walker, and Babington could do with a better publishing location than "United Kingdom", "Great Britain", or "England"
I've sought out more specific locations, but was not able to find anything more specific for Walker.
What makes ref. #5, #18, and #24 (which are the same thing and should be merged) a reliable source?
I've merged them, thanks for spotting. It is the website of the Shot At Dawn Campaign Group, who were active during the years prior to the Armed Forces Act and fought for Farr and others to be granted posthumous pardons. That particular webpage contains the transcript of Farr's court martial hearing. Do let me know if you'd like me to remove this source.
Ref. #9 needs a page number
Is that Putkowski & Sykes? There are no page numbers on that source unfortunately.
Ref. #13 uses an occasionally unreliable source, so if you can find a better source for the quote that might be useful. If you keep it as is then the ref still needs a complete cite web.
Searching for the quote just brings up the source, the wiki page, unreliable sources and wiki mirrors. Happy to remove the quote if you think that's better. I've expanded the citation in any case.
Ref. #47 is not a reliable source and I would suggest that the song is a little too close to self promotion/OR for inclusion in the article
Have deleted.
Ref. #48 needs a page number
The version I was using did not have page numbers.
Ref. #49 is a promotional piece for the song and not reliable
Have deleted.
As I've provided quite a few comments that might result in changes to the content of the article I will hold off on source spot checks until after responses from the nominator
@Unexpectedlydian: Hi, that's my initial run-through of the article complete. Will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, thank you for conducting such a thorough review. I think I have addressed all of your comments so far. Really appreciate you taking the time to look at this. Let me know if you have any further comments following a spot-checks. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 22:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


### Second run-through
His place of birth, London, is not cited or mentioned in the main text
Thanks, I've removed it.
Service number needs a cite
Done.
Suggest setting out the battles in infobox something like:

Looks good, have added.
The "T." in his name should probably be included in the first mention of his name in the text
Added.
Suggest changing "until the outbreak of war. During World War I..." to "until the outbreak of World War I. During the war..."
Thanks, have changed.
Hopulines is a sp
Oops, thanks - have corrected.
"October 1915" repeated year
Corrected.
"Farr later testified.." might work better as "Farr later testified that he could not recall any of the events that had led up to his arrest", if I've read it correctly
He remembered some of it. I've tried to make it clearer.
"Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig" should be "Sir Douglas Haig"; he doesn't get his earldom until 1919
Thanks, have changed.
The "moral conduct and professionalism" bit could do with a little addition explaining why these thoughts resulted in Farr being executed
I have expanded a bit: "from 1916 onwards, Kitchener's Army brought an influx of conscripts into the army, and senior military professionals were not certain how these men would fare on the front line. They believed that firm discipline was necessary to ensure the new conscripts would persist." and "The combination of military honour and the need for discipline may have led to Farr's ultimate death."
"The transcript of the court martial..." is now an incredibly tiny paragraph and should be merged with the previous one
You've changed the source but the quote still says "16th October"?
Ah sorry, got too excited! Have fixed.
I think you've removed "Janet" from the wrong "Booth"; her forename is now introduced on the second mention!
Thank you - fixed it.
"Stanley Burton" do you mean Burnton?
Yep - have changed. (I kept making the same mistake in my notes as well...)
Link Des Browne
Done.


### References and spot-checks
Putkowski/Sykes isn't listed in alphabetical order in the works cited list
Fixed,
Ref. #48, Eyal, does have page numbers. I believe you've looking for p. 91
Ah thank you, might have been the content deliver I was using.
You can probably keep the SAD references, but I would look for a better source if this article was taken any higher than GA
Thank you, will bear that in mind.
Wikipedia's opinion on wsws.org is that "There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting. If used, it must be evaluated for due weight as it is an opinionated source." Considering this is a quote, and not a very controversial or political one, I think the source is OK but repeat my caveat to the previous point
Great, thank you.
Spot-checks on Tomasini, Walker, White, Roberts, and Fenton were good
Ref. #4 does not actually say he was "alone" at the brazier
Have changed.
I had a look for other sources and while there are other modern books that discuss Farr, they don't seem to include any more details than the article. I do note that this book describes Farr's death as "Britain's most notorious military execution" which is a nice quote
Agreed, I've added it.
@Unexpectedlydian: That's it for me. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I think I've addressed everything in your second run-through and references/spot-checks. Do let me know if you have any further comments! Thanks again for your help with this article.Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 22:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I've made a couple of minor and hopefully uncontroversial edits, and am happy with your responses. Promoting this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)