Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard O'Connor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Richard O'Connor

This is a self nom, but I humbly submit the story of a now largely forgotten hero of the Second World War for your consideration. My friend Leithp and I did not start it, but we have put a lot of work, time and care into it. I hope the results show and you reward them with feature status. Thanks for your time, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Excellently written article. Stephen Turner 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to change my opinion to Neutral at the moment. I agree with SimonP's comments below about the final section. It's all too hagiographic at the moment. I don't think you need to lose the assessment section, just source it ("Baynes [or whoever] claims that O'Connor was quiet and patient" etc.). This will give us confidence that it's not just your own assessment. Stephen Turner 10:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very informative & but not too boring unlike other FAs. Spawn Man 22:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Boring is not a valid objection. Please give constructive objections. A FA has no co-relation to whether people on the street will know him. If an article is well researched, comprehensive and well written, it can be a FA. User:Nichalp/sg 06:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And your previous (major) support said it was "not too boring like other FAs". Odd that it suddenly became boring after four days? --Loopy 18:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Fine then, I'll put it back then... meanys.... Spawn Man 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is a great piece of work, but it still needs some tweaks. The lead should be longer than one section. There are also too many one paragraph sections, some of these should either be expanded or merged together. The earlier sections could use some more content, for instance it gives no information on how he got his WWI medals. There are some POV statements that need to be sourced, especially in the Assessment section. For instance we cannot simply state that he was "a quiet, patient, scholarly figure. In manner and appearance more like a kindly school master than a soldier." - SimonP 00:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments and constructive criticism. Simon, I've addressed some of the tweaks you said needed by expanding the intro and reorgainizing the article. As for the other issues. I want the main focus to be on his WWII career, not on WWI. I also do not want whole sections to sound like O'Connor's resumee, although I'm afraid some do. As for the assessment section, the goal there is to breath some life and analysis into the article, without interfereing with the facts of the main body. Doing as you suggest would, perhaps, make the article more NPOV, but it would also make it more dry and a less compelling read. This is a sacrifice I'am not willing to make. Respectfully, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, my major concerns have been addressed, and I withdraw my objection. - SimonP 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, so do I have you support now? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Mild objection: The man himself is certainly interesting, but I feel like the biography suffers from its sources at this time. The coverage of his military career is excruciatingly detailed, with few explanations of the significance of the detail. Essentially, a great deal of the time between the wars not much was happening except a very active military career. Each transfer of post is given, without a rationale for inclusion. If each of those moves is important for the career or the significance of the life, then help the reader out by explaining it a little. If not, perhaps some elision is called for. The other thing that bothered me a bit was the "Assessment" section. Having an assessment is copacetic, but this particular one sounds a bit like what the 1911 used to do: focus on the personality and affect of the person rather than the function and effect of him. The pleasantness of his manner is important, I'm sure, in explaining his effectiveness as an administrator and manager, but, unless it is couched in such terms, it seems distracting to talk about these things. (wanting to support) Geogre 13:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the dreaded, offending "Assessment section" so it is now less POV and hagiographic, as per the above critcisms and suggestions. Please forgive me, if it still sounds a bit like the 1911. The reason for that is I find the style and prose of pre-WWI to be so much more eloquent and warm than the terse, clinical and neutral language which has come into favor since. Please also excuse that parts of it still sound a bit much like a Resumee. Originally the section on O'Connor's interwar postings was shorter, covering only significant assignments. However, I felt compelled to add the remainder for the sake of completeness. Had I failed to do so, I'm sure someone here would be bound to ask-"So what did he do from 1929-1934?" (Damned If I Did, please meet Damned If I Did'nt :). So I chose to err on the side of completeness but still expanded, briefly, (since this is just an article afterall and not a full biography) on those postings which would have a greater significance to his future life, namely his WWII career. The latter must be covered in greater detail, since, again, it is the core of the article and, needless to say, its entire Raison D'Etre.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support now that objections have been answered. (And violating NPOV is a reason for objecting, y'all, which is something the 1911 did all the time. I can point to numerous 1911 examples of major authors dismissed as "vile" and "obscene." If we don't want to be as infuriating and laughable as 1911 is, we would do well to be more clinical than it. The current assessment has moved away from what I considered objectionable POV and toward NPOV evaluation.) I still feel that the article is too complete for the thesis to appear, but that is not a reason to object. Geogre 14:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I find the article informative, well-written and designed. With the new wording of the "Assessment" section, I believe the only remaining point that needed a serious revision has been properly addressed. I encourage R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) to provide a source for the considerations included at that section, but I think that this is easy to solve, and personally, it doesn't represent a reason to oppose by itself. Shauri smile! 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and informative. And as per Shauri, problems have been properly addressed. Nufy8 00:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support, on the whole a good biography, but I agree the assessment section needs to provide sources for statments so it doesn't read like the authors POV. This should be easy to remedy.--nixie 14:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• The assessment section is certainly much improved now, but I'm still a bit uneasy about it. I would still really like to see some sources for the descriptions of his character. Stephen Turner 13:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support if 'Assessment' section is expanded and NPOVed. It is both too short (stub section) and contains unsourced remarks like 'was arguably one of the finest generals of the IIWW'. This article would also benefits from some external links, more pictures of the general and the lead could use some expantion to three paragrapsh to be truly comprehensive. All things considered, great job. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all. As far as sources for his character go, they are my apprasals based on ALL the references I list and more, including his own papers. The easy solution would be to delete the assessment section all together now. But Iam unwilling to do that simply to gain FA status. I want to have at least some praise for O'Connor and not just bury him the way history pretty much has. He deserves better. So out of respect for the subject, I must respectfully decline. However, the advice and edits you have suggested, and even made in some cases, have made this a much better article. Along with your generous compliments, you have reminded me why I love Wikipedia. Especially those from Shauri, SimonP and Piotrus, whom I regard as 3 of the BEST writers and researchers in the entire community. Even if I fail to get Sir Richard his FA, I come away from this experience greatly enlightened and encouraged. Once again, thanks for your time and your thoughts.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's interesting, well written and backed up by references - I like it! You've addressed the problems brought forth by others and the article is in good shape. I only have three issues to raise. The first is the line "Sir Richard O'Connor was arguably one of the finest generals of the Second World War." under Assessments. That just doesn't really feel right to me, maybe it could be tweaked to be toned down a bit, or maybe a quote of someone saying something along those lines? Second is that I think his picture should be brought up the page and made more prominent, like you see with the Erwin Rommel or Bernard Montgomery articles. Finally, and I'm probably wrong about this, are you sure he attended Tonbridge Castle School? I lived in Tonbridge for 7 and a half years and racking my brains I really can't remember a Tonbridge Castle School, while there is Tonbridge School right next to Tonbridge Castle, a respected posh school in the town. I could well be wrong though. Those issues aside, great job on the article! --Loopy 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Loopy! Thanks for your support and suggestions. In answer to your querry regarding the Tonbridge Castle School, Iam really not sure about this. There seems to be a lot of schools there, and it was over a century ago besides. It could well have changed names, or moved, merged with another school or closed down entirely. But your knowledge of the area, obviously, far exceeds mine, which is entirely based on what little I have read. Still, Tonbridge does sound like a lovely place to visit and I don't think I'd mind living there either. Kent is the "Garden" of England after all. My thanks again, along with my compliments on your fine work on the Zulu War! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Aye, Tonbridge was a nice place to live. And if you got bored of the town, just jump on the train to head north to London, or south to the beach at Hastings, with much in between to check out. Regarding the school, I found this quote on a website: "For the next hundred years Tonbridge Castle passed through the hands of several owners and tenants, it was used as a military academy and as a boys school. The site was finally purchased by the local council in 1900, using the mansion as offices, and opening the grounds as a public park." [1] So I now reckon he did attend a school called Tonbridge Castle School, probably for two years, 1899 and 1900 before it became a council property. Cheers, --Loopy 18:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)