Talk:Kenneth Dewar

GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

Issues preventing promotion

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

• 1. Be careful of judgemental or unencyclopedic prose. I have put some examples below which should be addressed.

• "was fortunate in the peace that followed to have active sea-going commands" - should read more like "in the peace which followed, Dewar had sea-going commands".
• "he exhibited his forthright manner which would later discredit him" - remove "which would later discredit him"

• 2. I believe in the Royal Navy that "1st Lieutenant" is a position not a rank, and so should read instead as "first lieutenant". Similarly his brother became a "captain" not a "Captain" as it is not a proper noun in this instance.
• 3. There is a dates problem in the first paragraph of "First World War". Clearly he cannot have joined the Dover Patrol in 1914 in a ship not built until 1915. Please look into this.
• 4. I think the word request is missing from the phrase "and put in writing their for reinstatement". Please confirm.
• 5. The quote "not guilty to two charges of accepting and forwarding a letter subversive of discipline and contrary to King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions. Has no end. Please confirm this is at the end of the sentance.
• 6. The statement "The British Navy at Jutland in 1916 beat the ex-Kaiser; and at Invergordon in 1931 it beat Mr. Montagu Norman" needs quotation marks at the correct points and shouldn't be in italics.
• 7. The "Brief history of the Naval review" weblink reference needs full publication and last access information.

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN) "What is the war value of oversea commerce?" - Should this read "overseas" or is this correct?

• Look into creating an article on Collard, he seems interesting.

In all, this isn't far from GA and only a few alterations are needed to bring this to the required standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

Thank you very much for reviewing the article. If you don't mind I've numbered your points so it's easier for me to say how I've addressed them.

1. I removed the word "fortunate" and reworded the sentence. I also added a small section in the main article why he was fortunate to hold commands. The "discredit" section has been removed, and the sentence at large reworded so that it makes sense.
2. First Lieutenant is a position however it was also capitalised when used in direct connection with a ship, i.e. First Lieutenant of Dreadnought. If it was mentioned in passing then it would be without the capitals. With rank in the Royal Navy one was "promoted to Captain" or "to Commander". I've reworded the case of his brother to reflect that.

I'm not sure that a rank in the Royal Navy is a proper noun unless it is part of someone's full title, but it is certainly not worth holding up this review for.

1. I added the date earlier today and obviously cocked it up. It has been rectified.
2. "Request" was missing - added.
3. The "charges" sentence has been fixed, missed a " at the end of the sentence.
4. Sorted the quotes from Dewar's poster.
5. Sorted the link, hopefully it is now satisfactory.

On the paper title, "Oversea" is correct, or at least that was how it was announced in The Times. I would do Collard, however I've got a raft of other articles in the works, plus I can't say I'm particularly interested by him! Regards, Harlsbottom (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, all the above satisfactorily addressed. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work. — BillC ^talk 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Beatty canvassing anecdote

Back in 2003-4, I heard the following anecdote in an after dinner speech by, of all people, Theresa May (I am not making this up!): to cut to the chase, Admiral Beatty once went canvassing in an election in naval town, and was mistaken for a sailor in search of female company, and swiftly invited to the upstairs room which was bookable by the hour/redirected to the brothel down the road/whatever. In some versions of the story he was canvassing with Nancy Astor, who was mistaken for his female (ahem) companion. I dare say the story, if there is a grain of truth in it, may have begun as a malicious story that if Beatty went door-knocking in a naval town people might get the wrong idea. If Dewar was a member of Beatty's "party" as he seems to have been, then maybe Beatty was canvassing for him in 1931. Maybe worth keeping an eye or an ear open.Paulturtle (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)