Talk:Daddy, What Did You Do in the Great War?/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): I reviewed the six non-zero matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues. ("Gunn's own feelings of guilt" appears in a source but I think is OK per WP:LIMITED) I read most of the sources available to me, and no issues from those either.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): Both images are PD.

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): Relevant. Positioning and captions are fine. Excellent ALT text.
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Background

World War I is currently linked at the second opportunity rather than at the first.
- Fixed.
Recruitment for World War I was different from prior wars - I don't have access to this source. Does it state this specifically about recruitment in Britain?
- I also don't have access to this source - I think this one was already here before I started editing the article. Happy to find an alternative source or edit the line?
chaired by Herbert Asquith - is it worth adding that he was the Prime Minister?
- Good point! Have added.
Is "officially" needed? (Maybe it is, e.g. to contrast with the Voluntary Recruiting Publicity Committee and others)
- I have changed to "organised an extensive official recruitment campaign".
Spot check on At the outbreak of World War I, Britain did not have a policy of conscription. The Parliamentary Recruitment Committee, chaired by Herbert Asquith, officially organised an extensive recruitment campaign to encourage men to enlist in the army - no issues.
Spot check on There were 1.4 million new volunteers in 1915, up from 1 million in 1914, and approximately 30% of military-aged men had volunteered for military service - no issues.

Publication history

Spot check on Upon seeing a sketch of the poster, Gunn signed up to the Westminster Volunteer Cavalry. to V&A source - no issues.

Design

Spot check on Unlike many other World War I recruitment posters, which were typified by simple imagery and words, "Daddy what did you do in the Great War?" has more detailed drawings with an elegant design - no issues.
Spot check on The war necessitated a use for psychological advertising—a method to control and influence the entire population, rather than targeting one specific audience for a commercial product - only issue is that the link is to Moeran Volume 2, but should be to Moeran Volume 4.
- Thanks, I've added the correct Internet Archive link.

Reception

These Nicholas Hiley writes that posters like needs a slight tweak.
- Fixed.
Spot check on now one of the most famous World War I recruitment posters - no issues.

Infobox and lead

All good. The use of a citation in the lead to support "an icon" is appropriate IMO.
Optionally, perhaps a bit more based on the Propaganda section could be added.
- I've added a little bit, let me know if you have any suggestions.

General comments

I made a few very minor script-suggested tweaks, feel free to revert any.
A really interesting article, which, judging from the sources I reviewed, gives appropriate and balanced coverage to the subject. Thanks for your work on this, Unexpectedlydian; I'm open to discussion or challenge on any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing this @BennyOnTheLoose, I will address your comments shortly! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 22:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose Hi again, apologies for my delayed response! I have addressed most of your comments above. The only thing outstanding is that I also don't have access to the source you've mentioned, so happy to replace with a different source if you'd prefer. Many thanks again for the succinct review, glad you enjoyed the article! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 20:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unexpectedlydian: I found the Hynes book, which from it's cover and title page seems to be titled The Soldiers' tale: bearing witness to modern war (rather than ...to a modern war). Page 31 has "That poster wouldn't have worked in any previous British war. Daddy wouldn't have gone to fight the Russians in the Crimea, or the Zulus at Isandlhwana, or the Dervishes at Khartoum; the regular army would have done the job. But this war would be different." I've tweaked the citation accordingly. I'm satisfied that the article meets the criteria, so am passing it. Optionally, you could consider adding a hatnote to help any readers who came to the article looking for What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? (WP:HAT). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2023 (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.