# Talk:Sidney Mashbir

A significant amount of previously donated physical information and records relating to Sidney Mashbir is stored at the Charles E. Young Research Library in Los Angeles, CA
Anyone wishing to make a substantial contribution to this Wikipedia article may be able to seek these resources. [1]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonx (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 

As per the request on my talk page I have reviewed this article. In doing so, I have made a few edits to comply with the Manual of Style. Largely the article looks quite good and I have rated this article as a Start class article. Nevertheless, I feel that with a little more work it might be able to be assessed as B class. I have the following suggestions:

expand the lead to summarise the entire article;
provide some details about the subject's later life and when and where they died in the main prose section;
I'm not really knowledgable on the subject so can't really comment on the content. As such I suggest requesting a formal peer review as this might attract the help of a few other editors with more specific knowledge. This can be done by going to WP:MHPR and following the steps listed there. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, "following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mashbir was re-enrolled in January 1940". Considering that the attack on Pearl happened at the end of 1941, this would be rather impressive. I assume that Mashbir was not actually a time-traveller, so perhaps a bit of clean-up is warranted? 82.209.158.3 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sidney Mashbir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I recall peer reviewing this some time ago so looking forward to assessing for GA.  Will aim to get comments to you in next few days...  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, my apologies for taking a while with this -- if you don't get these things in before Xmas/NY madness, it's always a delay.  Thanks for your patience...!
I've engaged in a fair bit of copyediting because I think it's quicker than putting straightforward things down here, however I have some queries:
Early service

Is "First Lieutenant of the University Battalion" a position or a rank?

Between the wars 

...when he sought reinstatement, discovered that orders had already been cut to reinstate him... -- This doesn't really make sense. He wants to be reinstated, then there's an issue because the Army's already decided to reinstate him? Isn't that what he wanted?
In brief, he resigned in order to carry out a top-secret mission under the guise of a businessman, that failed as a result of the earthquake, he applied to be reinstated, but an unprinted law was established that a resigned officer could not be reinstated.
N.B. I see that a point from the Peer Review wasn't acted on, namely keeping date formats all in one format, either day-month-year or month-day-year -- made them all the former.
Images

All images appear appropriately licensed (no action required)
Although not required, all images have alt text (no action required)
Technical data

Dab links: None (no action required)
External links: 1) broadwaytovegas.com appears to be a dead link 2) loislaw.com requires registration, so "(registration required)" needs to be added to the citation
I have fixed these. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the issues above, article appears in pretty good shape though it did need the copyedit. Pls respond to the above when you can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I just started a new job and am getting settled so I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the momemnt. Hopefully I can find some time shortly(over the next week) to address the issues. Aeonx (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Again!! I have become busy dealing with the Queensland floods in Australia. You might need to put this on hold for another week or so. I really would love to get back into the swing of things on Wikipedia but my time of late does not allow this to be so. Aeonx (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the status on this review? Not much going on on the page so making sure things are progressing. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Tks Rupert for those tech items. My main concerns were the content issues although with the response about the reinstatement I may be able to rephrase things myself when I get a minute soon (the First Lt. thing would be nice to confirm but isn't that big a deal) and then we might be able to put this one to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries at all. It sounds like a rank to me (a lieutenant in the Australian Army could possibly in rare circumstances serve as an adjutant, although it would normally be a captain's position, so it might well be the same for a first lieutenant in the US), but I'm really just guessing unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've done a bit of rewording re. the main outstanding point I had, based on an earlier response from the nominator, so with Rupert's assistance on the technical issues I think we can close this as passed. Thanks all! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)