Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Kenneth Dewar

Kenneth Dewar

I have just had this article promoted to GA standard, and I'm interested in where to proceed from here. The article is getting a bit long, but I feel that whatever detail I've included is relevant to the subject. Dewar is perhaps a little out of the way as far as naval history goes, but after I elaborate a bit more on his intellectual leanings I reckon he'll stand as an example of a unique sort of RN officer - controversial, cocksure and very intelligent. It would be nice to get the article up to FA-class standard, but anything which improves the article will do. Regards, Harlsbottom (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard C. Berkowitz

Interesting article. Minor note: some of the sentence construction and word choice is British rather than American English. I happen to find phrasings such as "promoted (rank)" to be more pleasant than the American "promoted to (rank)", and I'm not sure of the rule here -- should an article on a British topic use British English, or is the general American English rule applicable.

The mark of a good article often is that it makes me want to know more about the subject. For example, was he too junior, or was he affected by the Fisher-Beresford feud? Given the impact of failing to force the Dardanelles, I'd have liked to see more about his critique of Naval training and what should be fixed. As an aside, did he have any comment on the WWII sinking of Royal Oak?

This article may indicate a need for some additional background articles, or linking to ones that exist. Alternatively, some of the issues may not have been the practice at the time. As I understand, a RN officer now elects Navigating, Gunnery, Engineering, Supply, etc. early in his career, and command of a warship is an option only for navigating officer. Here, however, Davies is described as a gunnery officer yet received command.

Note B is a bit redundant. Unless one serves in a navy with Voudoun chaplains, being killed is definitely incapacitating, but one can be incapacitated by wounds, or being perfectly healthy but without communications.

I enjoyed reading it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The guideline on British v. American English is, as far as I know, editor's choice, as long as you are consistent. Carom (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As regards promotion, when Dewar joined one basically had the Executive Branch and the none-Executive Branch, the latter including Engineering, Medical, Accountant, and all the rest. Before Dewar had joined, the Navigation Branch, formerly separate had become part of the Executive. One either didn't specialise, but off the top of my head I can't think there were that many who didn't, or you specialised in Gunnery, Navigation or Torpedoes (which also included the electrical branch). All naval cadets were given a formal and rigorous training in sciences and basic engineering, so specialising didn't detract too much to anything they had learned about seamanship and the like. Before the Selborne Scheme came into effect, which requires alot of explanation, only the Executive branch could command warships, whatever their specialisation, provided that Their Lordships at the Admiralty felt that the officer in question was capable. At any rate they would have been expected to be capable of commanding a ship. I'm re-reading a very good book on the education of naval cadets, if and when I feel confident I will try and impart some of it into Wikipedia and this article.

As to background, he would have watched the Beresford-Fisher Feud I am sure, however, until I can find a copy of his memoirs I am stumped. I haven't come across anything in The Naval Review on it yet but I'm sure something will turn up. Ditto with the sinking of Royal Oak. I need to obtain a copy of the books on the "Mutiny" or grill User:BillC at some point.

You have a point about Note B, I will reword as there is a little something more to impart on tactics and chain-of-command there I think. Anyway, thanks for the comments, very stimulating! Harlsbottom (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Carom

This is pretty well done, I think. I would recommend expanding the lead a little; it does it's job, but it's perhaps a little short based on the length of the article. There're also a few places where a few more refs wouldn't be amiss - the end of the "post-war commands section" doesn't let us know where the information comes from, for example. Overall, nice work! Carom (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Will sort some more refs out - it would seem I missed a few out for some reason when I first drafted it! Cheers for constructive comments! Harlsbottom (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)