The following discussion 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 promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

James Crichton (soldier)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

James Crichton (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

James Crichton was the last soldier of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) of WWI to be awarded the VC, for his actions during the Hundred Days Offensive. The article went through a GA review earlier this year. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and, all going well, seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

• Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any issues; outstanding points:
  • "Nicknamed Scotty, he joined the British Army by enlisting in the Royal Scots Regiment at the age of 18" -- Are nicknames usually italicised? I would've expected either quote marks or nothing at all... Also, did one directly enlist in a British Army regiment back then? Or did he enlist in the army and was allotted to the regiment?
    • Put the nickname into quotes instead. Will look into enlistment. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the source refers to him "enlisting" with the Royal Scots. Zawed (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it none of the sources elaborate on his experiences during the Boer War?
    • No they don't unfortunately - the medal set link (cite 11) shows the campaign medal with five clasps so he obviously served for a while. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Promoted to corporal" -- I'm guessing that although we can assume he joined the NZMF as a private, the sources don't say so explicitly?
    • Yes, presumably he was a private at time of enlistment but the sources don't explicitly state this. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crichton harboured a desire to serve with the infantry" -- "harboured a desire" reads a little oddly to me, do the sources support "expressed a desire", or something else?
    • Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later stated that he had been selected for officer training, but a senior officer in the Auckland Infantry Regiment offered to arrange his transfer if permission was obtained." -- Do we mean selected for officer training in his bakery mustering? I assume so but we should probably spell out...
    • Have clarified that the officer training would have been with the NZASC. 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Zawed (talk)
  • "Crichton was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his subsequent deeds." -- I realise the citation tells us everything but perhaps we could paraphrase that into a sentence in place of the somewhat bland "subsequent deeds"...
    • Have expanded on the VC action. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crichton resumed his pre-war profession as a cable splicer" -- It seems a bit odd we didn't learn of this pre-war profession in the pre-war section of the article...
    • No, it is there, last sentence of the early life section. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "worked on merchant ships travelling between New Zealand and England" -- Again I assume nothing in the sources on his specific role or duties?
    • Unfortunately not. I searched the NZ equivalent of Trove but nothing explicitly stated. There was a mention that he couldn't attend a reception for VC winner Chive Hulme in 1941 due to being overseas on service. I will check out the archives at the local library for an obit, that may mention it. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing found in the obit RE WWII service. Zawed (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay tks for trying -- I can see the article is somewhat expanded overall and, after tweaking changes here and there, am ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Detail-wise I feel there are some gaps for A-Class, per comments above -- hoping there might be some more info out there.
• Images -- Licensing of works from IWM and Auckland War Memorial Museum looks satisfactory.
• Sources -- Appear reliable and formatted correctly.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review Ian, have responded above and with article edits. There is one bit of homework for me RE his WWII service. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Unfortunately, I was not able to find anything further RE his WWII service. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert: Support: G'day, nice work. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• in the infobox, it lists his years of service as 1899-1904, however, in the prose it says he joined the Royal Scots at the age of 18. He would have been 18 over the period 15 July 1897 to 14 July 1898, so this seems to contradict the infobox. Additionally, the body of the article implies he served in the British Army for seven years, not five ("at the age of 18. Two years later, he transferred to the Cameron Highlanders. He remained with the Highlanders for five years...)
  • Have fixed this. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (NZEF) in October 1914..: remove the second full stop
  • Another editor has dealt with this. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• He served in the Gallipoli Campaign: I assume with the New Zealand and Australian Division at Anzac Cove?
  • Have expanded on this a little. Zawed (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In May 1918: we seem to jump from mid-1916 to early 1918 between the first and second paragraphs. Is there anything that could be said about Crichton's service in this period? I understand that he was in a support role, and that such service tends to be glossed over, but even a single sentence might work. For instance, "After their arrival in Europe in [DATE], Crichton's unit was employed behind the lines in support of the New Zealand Division, moving many times throughout the next two years to various locations around France and Belgium"... Of course, this requires a source that actually says this, so if it doesn't exist, obviously it can't be said, but I wonder if you could look for something like this to fill in the gap here.
  • I have expanded a little bit on this. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• he would be reduced in rank if he was to proceed with the transfer --> "he would be reduced in rank if he proceeded with the transfer}}?

• Revised as per suggestion. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Auckland Infantry Regiment appears to be overlinked
  • Whoops, have removed dupe link. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• He later stated that he had been selected for officer training with the NZASC: this seems a rather passive way of wording this. Is there reason to doubt it is true? If not, I'd suggest maybe rewording, thusly: "He had been selected for officer training with the NZASC, but he turned this down when a senior..."

• The portion of the source that deals with this is reciting something Crichton said, which is why a phrased it the way I did. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Too easy, sounds fair enough. 02:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• During the Hundred Days Offensive, on 30 September 1918: was this action part of a named battle? If so, I think we should mention it here?

• No, I don't believe so. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• During the Hundred Days Offensive, on 30 September 1918: suggest flipping this --> "On 30 September 1918, during the Hundred Days Offensive"
  • Have flipped as per suggestion. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• inconsistent presentation, compare "Post Office and Telegraph Department" v. "New Zealand Post & Telegraph Department" (specifically "and/&" and "Post" v "Post Office" -- did it change its official title?)
  • Have amended for consistency. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Crichton died at Auckland Hospital on 22 September 1961: do we know what he died from?
  • No, I haven't been able to glean anything RE cause of death. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• are there any more details about his family, e.g. wife's name, when and where they married etc?
  • Have added a little about his marriage. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• as the "VC" section is very small, I'd suggest just merging it into the the Later life section
  • Have done.
  • @Zawed: G'day, Zawed, not sure if you have seen these comments or not? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AustralianRupert: @Sturmvogel 66: Hi gents, have finally polished off the outstanding comments here, let me know what you think. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, Zawed, looks good to me. I've added my support above. Thanks for hunting down those last points. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

• I don't see any remaining issues other than those that Ruper has raised, so I'll hold off on supporting until they've been addresses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• G'day Sturm, this looks like it is travelling well. Could you take another look and see what still needs doing in your view? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything looks good, but I'm would still a little more info on his Boer War service. Perhaps cross-referencing the bars on the medal with the regiment's history during the war could give us one or two sentences on his activities. Something like "he was a rifleman at the Battle of Spion Kop and the Relief of Ladysmith", etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sturmvogel 66: thanks for the feedback, I have added some material on the doings of his unit in the Boer War. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Good enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

• The lead seems a little light on detail, particularly on what he did to earn his VC, considering it's the sole reason for his notability

• I have added a little more on the VC action. I think the lede is generally about right given the length of the article. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Sturm that a little more detail on the Boer War would be nice though I can believe there's nothing specific about Crichton in the sources so maybe a sentence or two about what his regiment was doing during the time he was there?

• This was always a part of the article that was a bit frustrating to deal with since there is so little about his service during this time. I have expanded with a bit of detail about what his unit did during some of this time. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Crichton's VC was the last to be won I believe the term "won" is frowned upon for military awards

• Yes, I had forgotten that. I have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you only have one short footnote, why not just incorporate it into the prose in parentheses?

• It is a style thing for me, I have used this format with a few other VC articles that I have brought for A-Class review. If you insist I will do so, but my preference would be to use footnotes. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't insist on something so minor, and would have no basis to do so anyway. I prefer not to create a footnotes section for a single note, but it's a matter of personal preference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on 27 February maybe change "ceremony" → "investiture"?

• Done. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all fairly minor points. With a little spit-polish, I see no reason why this shouldn't succeed at ACR and FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell thanks for the review, much appreciated. I have responded to your various points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with the responses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.