Wikiwand AI

Talk:Thomas Fremantle, 3rd Baron Cottesloe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Associated task forces: ...
Close

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Fremantle, 3rd Baron Cottesloe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments regarding the article

I came by this article about a month ago, with the thought of taking up the GA review. This was partly because I had a review pledge to fulfill, and partly because UndercoverClassicist had given back-to-back reviews of articles I nominated at FA, and I was interested in taking a look at UC's own writing style. For a variety of reasons, I don't think I'm going to take up the review: in particular, I think the article requires more work than I can comfortably oversee at the moment, and, giving the several times where I noted how the writing in this article conflicts with the very points raised in those reviews at FA, it might have seemed that by taking on the review, I was trying to make a point.

With that said, I've now read through the article several times, and still have little understanding of who the guy was, what he did, why what he did was important, and how it all fits together. I'm posting below the comments that I wrote when considering taking the review, in the hopes that they be used to help improve the article before the official GA review.

Lead
  • Where did he pick up the CB post-nominal? The others are mentioned, but I don't see this one. Also, MOS:POSTNOM would have something to say here, although I don't really agree with that policy.
    • This one was tricky -- couldn't find it in the Gazette, but he's reliably referred to by it after 1928. I've stuck in a fudgy solution for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Regarded among the foremost marksmen of his day — We're not told who considered him so, and there is no cite for the assertion. It also doesn't appear to show up in the body.
  • the English Eight Club — The body says he competed in the English Eight. Was it not a competition, but a club? The English Eight Club isn't ever mentioned in the body.
    • It's a team; I've slightly rephrased to "competed for" and used the term "English Eight" in both for consistency. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • the most prestigious competition in British rifle shooting — The body says this was the most prestigious competition at the Imperial Meeting, not in British rifle shooting.
    • This was another tricky one -- sources have a frustrating habit of not stating the incredibly obvious -- but I found one and added it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • he went on to captain Great Britain in the International Rifle Match, the Empire Match and the Palma Match — From context we can divine that these were shooting competitions, but little else. Also, a number of these terms can probably take (red) links; the following paragraph has far more links than this one.
    • If a reader takes away that they're international shooting matches, that's enough. Possible material for redlinks but for now I'm minded to leave them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • was regarded as an authority on the history and design of rifles — Was he? The body says that he wrote several articles on the history and design of rifles, but not how people regarded him.
  • The third paragraph gives us a lot of roles and titles, but little of what it meant or what he did. This issue also pervades the body.
    • Yes, it's tricky when you're dealing with someone who had a lot of titles, most of which were basically honorific! Most are self-explanatory, thankfully -- the War Office Small Arms Committee was a committee which helped the War Office with small arms, for example. Even if readers only take away "he had a lot of official-sounding titles", that's a win. Where it's important that readers understand exactly what the title meant, such as for the Territorial Association, that's stated in the body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • He was also an amateur poet; he published a volume of his verse in 1950, which included poems about Bisley and rifle shooting. — As in the body, this comes out of left field. Is it really lead worthy? And is it really correct to call him an amateur poet when this appears to just be an end-of-life passion project?
  • Fremantle's eldest son, Thomas, was killed in the First World War; upon his death in 1956, Fremantle's title passed to his second son, John. — The grammar is off here: "his death" takes Thomas as its subject, not Fremantle.
    • I don't think that's the only or the most sensible reading. We could do something like "Fremantle's dog died in 1929; his wife was devastated" -- nobody would think the dog was married. I've added "his own" to make it even more obvious. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Among his four daughters — Same here: We haven't reestablished Fremantle as the subject.
Infobox
  • The Slough Charter of Incorporation, whatever it is, is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
    • It's the charter marking the incorporation of Slough (as a town). I don't think it needs to be, frankly -- it's only important because it's where the photo comes from. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • His wife's year of death isn't mentioned in the body.
Early life and education
  • a descendant of — What was the relationship? This is vague.
  • "Admiral Thomas Fremantle" — Given that, in your view, per MOS:CREDENTIAL It's usual in military articles to use someone's rank when it's relevant in context (e.g. when they're commanding a certain formation or giving orders), but we wouldn't normally use it any more than we'd call someone "Mr. John Smith" (see also your comment that per MOS:HONORIFIC, we probably don't need his military rank here, what is the basis for including Fremantle's military rank here? I don't agree with your views on these guidelines, but—if you're going to take them (and stridently so)—you should hold yourself to the same standard.
  • Meanwhile, if "the Sutton Hoo ship-burial ... is a ... WP:SEAOFBLUE" (your words), then so is "Admiral Thomas Fremantle". It's also unclear why you would link to Admiral instead of Admiral (Royal Navy), but that's another matter.
  • who was awarded the Austrian title of Baron Fremantle — We've just switched between conventions. Thomas Fremantle, 2nd Baron Cottesloe, is presented with title following name. Why switch to who was awarded for the next baron?
    • I think you've got a bit tangled here: there are two different titles in play (the British title of Baron Cottesloe and the Austrian one of Baron Fremantle). This seems like the best way to convey the information, but I'm glad to take a suggestion of an alternative. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Charles William Fremantle, who became deputy master of the Royal Mint, was his paternal uncle. — The his is unclear, given that the previous sentence discussed three people.
  • There, he took up rifle shooting: in 1879 — There's a lot going on in this paragraph, and it needs to be clarified. As an initial step, I'd use a period here rather than a colon, given that you're introducing only one example of his rifle shooting, and more of them follow.
  • attended the Imperial Meeting at Bisley in Surrey, the premier competition in fullbore shooting — Surrey is a geographical region, not a competition.
    • Yes: "the premier competition" modifies "the Imperial Meeting", not "Surrey". Compare "Wormwood Scrubs in London, which is home to the most dangerous criminals in England". UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The rifle he used is more relevant to the sentence in which you discuss his perfect score of ten bullseyes.
  • he attended the Imperial Meeting at Bisley in Surrey, the premier competition in fullbore shooting. He won the Wills Prize with a perfect score of ten bullseyes at 200 yards (180 m), and represented Eton in the Ashburton Shield, contested between the public schools of the United Kingdom. — This is confusing, and I think partly corrupted by this edit. Was the Wills Prize part of the Imperial Meeting, or was it something else? Meanwhile, the current wording makes it seem as if the Ashburton Shield was part of the Imperial Meeting (assuming the Wills Prize was also), which appears to be incorrect.
    • They're both part of the Imperial Meeting (the Ashburton being part of the Schools, which was part of the Imperial). We've got all the necessary info about the Wills -- it was a competition in which people fired ten shots at 200 yards. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • You explain what the enigmatically named Imperial Meeting is, but not what the enigmatically named Ashburton Shield is. What is it? Also, what is the Wills Prize? Was it awarded for overall first place, or something else?
    • The Ashburton I think is explained fine by the Ashburton Shield, contested between the public schools of the United Kingdom. It's a shooting competition contested between the public schools of the United Kingdom. @@@@
  • He did so again in 1880, in which year his team won the competition — Which competition? You've just named at least two. Also, how did his team do the previous year?
    • The Ashburton; I don't think it was particularly unclear, but it's now clearer. I don't know the result for 1879: for most old competitions we only have the winner or top three. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • What years was he at Eton and Oxford?
    • I don't have specific years for Eton (it would have been, roughly, 1876 to 1881), but have found and added those for Oxford. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • long-range ... short-range — What do these terms mean?
    • I think these are both pretty standard English, rather than jargon. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oxford won seven out of these eight matches — We're told how the team did, but how did Fremantle do?
    • I've put in the big scores, but I don't think anyone's particularly interested in reading off a list of eight numbers simply because we have them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • He received his BA in 1885. — See your point here re We should also explicitly indicate the abbreviation B.Litt.
    • I think BA, MA and PhD are in common usage, whereas B.Litt., DPhil, MMus etc are not. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Any other word on what else he did in school (and how well he did) besides shoot?
Public life
  • There are a lot of issues in this section, which I'll discuss in more detail below. But, at a high level, we have three paragraphs that each span decades, jumping forwards and backwards, and that throw around facts and terms with neither context nor any explanation of what they mean. The first paragraph moves from 1881 to 1908, back to 1901 and then to 1882, then takes us up to 1919. We start the second paragraph back in 1900, and again end it in the First World War. The third paragraph finds us back in the early 1890s, and we end it in Fremantle's ninth decade. The reason for this jumping around seems to be in part because we're told many titles and positions, but not what he actually did: To take your term, this entire section reads like a WP:PROSELINE, i.e., segments of articles that attempt to be (and should be) prose, but end up looking like timelines (although, as noted, an out-of-order timeline).
  • Fremantle became an officer in the Volunteer Force in 1881, later moving to the Territorial Army when the Volunteers were amalgamated into it in 1908; he was awarded both the Volunteer Officers' Decoration (in 1901) and the Territorial Decoration. — There are four linked terms in this sentence, none of which mean anything (save perhaps the reference to "Army") without clicking on the links. Also, why is a 1901 medal mentioned before (next sentence) what he was doing in 1882?
    • The medals are mentioned alongside the servic eto which they relate; the TD goes well with the VD, but we don't have a date for the former. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • If Fremantle became an officer in the Volunteer Force in 1881, that means this happened when he was still in school. Why was he in the Volunteer Force while still in school, and how did he manage both roles? What were his duties? How did they change when he graduated?
    • He would have been an undergraduate, and so almost certainly in the Oxford University Officers' Training Corps. On the rest, see below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • For every role in this section, we're given (a) exceptionally few duties, and (b) no idea of whether this was what Fremantle was doing full time, or if these were essentially honorary positions.
    • If you can find a source with any of this, feel free to add it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph ends in 1919, so why does the second paragraph cover 1900–1903?
    • The chronology and the content don't fit easily together (it's the same reason why we have a "Public life" and a "Shooting career" section, which cover the same period of time). The key organising principle here is to keep similar content together -- first rank and military appointments, then military-political work, then civilian-political work and honours, then poetry. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • In this capacity, he was sent in the same year — What year? The previous sentence referred to four.
  • "the Board of Ordnance ... the War Office Small Arms Committee ... the Territorial Association" — Which were what, exactly?
    • The latter is clarified in the text; the first two are reasonably self-explanatory (a board that dealt with matters to do with ordnance; a committee of the War Office about small arms) and their details aren't partcularly important. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • he was sent in the same year to make a report on the standards of safety at European shooting ranges ... he unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the assignment of recruits from Buckinghamshire to regiments of other counties and the disbandment of Buckinghamshire battalions — These are the only things we're told he did in any of his roles in this paragraph. Again, however, we aren't given any indication of what his overall responsibilities were.
  • he unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the assignment of recruits from Buckinghamshire to regiments of other counties and the disbandment of Buckinghamshire battalions — What is the relevance and import of this?
  • By this point, he had lost much of his former influence in the government and military. — Prior to this, the article never even mentioned that he had any influence in the government and military. Nor does it go on to explain why he lost this influence. We are told that he was a military marksmanship instructor and the shooting instructor for his unit, but these do not appear at face value to be particularly important roles. That is to say, why was he influential, why were his roles important, and why did he lose his influence?
    • See above re. "why don't we say things for which we don't have sources?"
  • After ending the second paragraph in the First World War, we find ourselves starting off the third paragraph in the early 1890s.
  • Fremantle was a county councillor for Buckinghamshire ... he was appointed a deputy lieutenant of the county ... he was lord-lieutenant of Buckinghamshire; he also served as president of the County Councils Association ... He also served as a justice of the peace and as a county alderman. — Once again, what are these roles/institutions, and what were his responsibilities?
  • he also served ... He also served ... He was also — The prose is jerky throughout this section, but this repetition, coming in three consecutive sentences, is particularly unfortunate.
    • Fortunately, prose quality is almost immaterial to the GA standards, but I'll look forward to discussing this with you if I ever take it to FAC. As ever, happy to take suggestions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Prose quality is literally the first GA criterion. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    It is, but the bar set is the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. That excludes almost all matters of taste and style. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • He was also an amateur poet ... — This comes out of left field. We've spent two and a half paragraphs (vaguely) discussing his military connections, and then we jump to discussing some amateur poetry that he published in the final decade of his life. It's unclear how this relates to anything else he did, and this would likely be better in "Personal life and issue".
    • Yes, probably more "private life" than "public life". I've moved it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Shooting career
  • Once again, this section reads like an out-of-order proseline, with terms that make no sense to those who don't have an understanding of British shooting competitions in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Our first sentence takes place in 1893 and 1921, our second sentence brings us back to 1885, our third carries us from 1920 until 1954, our fourth begins In June 1899, and so on and so forth.
    • As above, this is a question of layout philosophies. As you note, it's a bad timeline at least in part because it isn't attempting to be one: the events are grouped by type, then by date, partly to avoid the issues of WP:PROSELINE. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The section would likely also benefit from subsections that break it into things such as the events at which he competed, the research he conducted, and perhaps his NRA work.
    • That may be so., but I think the subsections thus crated would be too small (two paragraphs each) to be useful. Others may disagree, but fortunately the GA standards give us almost infinite discretion as to layout. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Fremantle made the Queen's Final again in 1893 and in 1921 — Again, this is remarkably out of order. Calling it the Queen's Final is also perhaps a bit colloquial, given that it's introduced above as the final of the Queen's Prize above.
    • "Queen's Final" (or, now, "King's Final") is used in very formal sources, so there's no need to be worried about any apparent colloquialism. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • He first competed in the English Eight, the match rifle team representing England in the international competition for the Elcho Shield, in 1885. — More enigmatic terms with no explanation. And, again, we've just gone from 1921 to 1885.
    • I've added a bit here; I think everything that needs explaining is explained. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • He went on to be part of the team for over sixty years, acting as a firer for 27 years, as its wind coach, and as its captain from 1920 until 1954. — What is a firer? What is a wind coach? What was the year span for which he was involved in the team? What did the team do during those six decades?
    • I think "firer" is pretty self-explanatory in an article about shooting! UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • In June 1899, he captained a Great Britain team in the International Rifle Match, held at The Hague in Holland — We're told that The Hague is in Holland, but not what the International Rifle Match is? Was this really a Great Britain team, or was it the Great Britain team?
    • Just about everything I know about the International Rifle Match, and that appears in the sources I can find, is covered by the name: it was a match, contested with rifles, between different nations. I think both forms of a/the GB team are valid. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • their poor performance was blamed on difficult range conditions, their choice of the Lee–Metford service rifle, and their decision to focus on shooting from the standing position. — Passive voice: Who did the blaming—the media, themselves, or someone else? Why wouldn't difficult range conditions affect everyone equally? Speaking of which, what exactly were those range conditions, and why would each of those three targets of blame affect their performance?
    • Another case for "I wish the sources were better", unfortunately, and I suspect your criticisms as to the range conditions would be fair ones to level at those involved. The source isn't totally clear as to who made these judgements. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Fremantle also captained ... He was also captain — Another instance of this. It's ugly to read, and it's also emblematic of how this article feels like stitched together facts with little cohesion.
  • the 1902 Palma Match — Which was...?
  • the 1908 International Match — Which was...?
  • 34 points behind the United States and 59 points ahead of Canada — Was a difference of 34/54 points a blowout? Neck-and-neck? Somewhere in between?
    • Another case for "if only the sources said what we wish them to". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • the strongest he had competed against — Sentence ending in a preposition.
    • Nonsense up with which I'm perfectly prepared to put, as Churchill probably didn't say. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • From 1887, Fremantle began to conduct research — Yet another paragraph that begins decades before the last one ended.
  • who became his mentor — How so?
  • his family estate — Was this Wistow Hall? If so, this should be said.
  • an iron target and a ballistic pendulum hut — Which were...?
    • I don't think many readers will struggle with the first, but I've added an EFN for the second. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • breech-loading rifles ... muzzle-loading weapons — Which were...?
  • the results of which led to the adoption of breech-loading rifles by the British military in place of muzzle-loading weapons — This is quite a breezy declaration that X led to Y. Any more details that can be added? What were the results? Why did they lead to the adoption of a different type of rifle? When did this take place?
    • We've said what the sources allow us to say.
  • he left Wistow to Fremantle — He didn't leave the village, he left his estate.
  • The results of some of these experiments were published as Mallock 1904. — It's difficult to avoid referring back to your comment, when faced with the line in Rupert Bruce-Mitford that Many of the works below are listed in Bruce-Mitford 1989b, that I would not name a source like this in prose, which to me conflicts with at least the spirit of WP:PAREN.
  • ballistic pendulum — Which is...?
  • Once again, this paragraph goes from 1897 to 1904 to 1909/1911, jumps back to 1896, then jumps forward by four decades. (Another issue is that we're not told that we're jumping forward four decades, because Fremantle's years at the helm of the Society for Army Historical Research aren't given; for that, we have to go go the article on the society.)
  • The penultimate paragraph similarly spans 50 years. It also reads as covering his time with the NRA, and then tosses in as a middle-of-the-paragraph afterthought his participation in the 1908 Summer Olympics—something that is apparently so important it's mentioned in the lead's second sentence.
  • The Empire Match is another unexplained event.
  • "He frequently represented the House of Lords in the Vizianagram Match" — Before this, we weren't even told he was a member of the House of Lords.
    • We had He became the third Baron Cottesloe on his father's death in 1918. I suppose we could add "making him a member of the House of Lords", but that may equally be a bit ecessive. After all, the clue is in the name "Lord Cottesloe". UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Several trophies awarded for NRA competitions, including a cup in memory of Henry Halford, were donated by Fremantle. He also organised the first collection of small arms at Bisley, which became the NRA museum. — Why is this at the end of a paragraph regarding his competitions, rather than in the paragraph dealing with his NRA work?
Published works
  • Why are his works split between here and "Works cited"? Incidentally, the latter section can't decide whether he's catalogued under L for Lord, or C for Cottesloe.
    • It was only "The Old Marksman", which seemed a little redundant as it's only a poem, not a book, and covered in Verses -- however, for consistency I've moved it up. The "Lord Cottesloe" under L in the bibliography is a title, not the author (it's an obituary), so is alphabetised correctly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Personal life and issue
  • This is another out-of-order section. We're given the details of his death before we're told of his marriage and family; similarly, we're told about his second son before his first.
    • It's Personal life, then issue, per the subtitle. Given the organisation of the information, it seems best to put the marriages with the latter. Biographies are usually organised chronologically, but that's not the only way to organise them, and doesn't have to be the principle at every level. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Does Swanbourne House warrant a red link?
  • was succeeded by — Succeeded in/as what?
  • Why so many details about the first son, and few if any on the other children?
    • Sources! In particular, John was another major rifle shooter and long-time captain of England, but I so far haven't found anything in print on that (it isn't mentioned in his Times or Telegraph obituaries, and I haven't been able to track down the NRA Journal for 1994). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

--Usernameunique (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Thanks for putting all of these together, Usernameunique. I've gone through them all, and actioned (down to "Shooting career" for now) where necessary. Some were very useful, and I've replied above where I can add something by doing so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. Edward056686 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Fremantle, 3rd Baron Cottesloe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 15:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Edward056686 (talk · contribs) 07:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I am reviewing this. Edward056686 (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Edward056686: thanks for taking this on. I look forward to your comments. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I will comment on everything that I notice, but not every comment will strictly be based on the Good Article criteria. If there’s anything you disagree with, feel free to ignore it.

  • for a total of more than sixty years. Could it be "for a total of over sixty years"?.
    • There would be nothing wrong with that, but I don't see what the problem or improvement might be here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
      • I just thought it would slightly shorten an already long sentence, but it isn't necessary. Edward056686 (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • He was also a long-time member of the English Eight, shooting for, coaching and captaining England in the Elcho match for a total of more than sixty years. Can you explain what the English Eight is for readers like me, who don’t know about it?
  • Charles William Fremantle, who became deputy master of the Royal Mint, was the second baron's brother, and so Thomas's paternal uncle the combination of shared names and titles is hellacious and you did a good job of handling it. Having said that, can it be shortened to “Thomas’ paternal uncle Charles William Fremantle became deputy master of the Royal Mint”.
  • He shot against Cambridge University in both the long-range Humphry Cup and the short-range Chancellors' Plate in each of his four years of study: Oxford won seven out of these eight matches;[2] Fremantle's was the highest score in his debut Chancellor's match of 1881,[8] and he submitted the top individual score in each Humphry match between 1882 and 1884.[9] I suggest breaking up this sentence.
  • Normally, the events in "Public life" and "Shooting career" should be chronological and this article kind of bounces back and forth, but I can understand why you divided it this way since it separates aspects of his career into distinct paragraphs.
  • He made the Queen's Final again in 1893 and in 1921. Calling it the final of the Queen's Prize would keep it consistent with the earlier parts of the article.
  • From 1887, Fremantle began to conduct research into ballistics... It seems like this part should be at the beginning of the "Shooting career" section since it seems to precede the rest of the information.
    • As you've correctly noted above, the sections are not chronological: his research "career" was much less important than his actual shooting, so it comes second (following the principles of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). It also sets up the following paragraph about Wistow Hall and Halford. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I feel like the “Published works” section should be at the bottom of the article, it breaks up the flow between “Shooting career” and “Personal life and issue”, and the latter section talks about his poetry.
  • Good photos which are in the public domain and have good captions.

Spot checks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1349651098.

  • 3; fine
  • 4; fine
  • 5; [Edit: all good.]
    • Are you asking for a quote here? I believe both sources are freely available on Google Books, but let me know if you have difficulty finding anything? UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • 10; fine
  • 12; fine
  • 13; fine
  • 15a; I don't see this on page 72 of McCartney.
  • 15b; fine
  • 16a,b,c; fine
  • 27; fine
  • 30, partial check on the North West Post; fine
  • 51; link was broken for me but was able to get it on internet archive.
    • Finished the spotcheck @UndercoverClassicist: the only place where I couldn't find the information in the source was on 15a but I might be looking in the wrong place. Edward056686 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Edward056686:replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: There's no rush but I was wondering if you had a chance to take another look at reference 15a? It's the only part of the spotcheck where I could not find the information. Edward056686 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You're looking in the right place -- if you read that page and the one before, it becomes clear that McCartney is narrating the events of August and September 1915. She then (slightly incorrectly) names "Colonel Lord Cottesloe" as taking an active part in those events. We know from the Gazette and similar that Cottesloe reached the rank of Lt-Col (not full Colonel, though the lower rank is referred to by courtesy as 'Colonel', and this must be what McCartney or her sources are doing), so this source gives us a useful terminus ante quem -- we can say from it that, by the end of 1915, he had been promoted above Major. His date of promotion is probably in the Gazette or some similar publication, but the OCR on the old editions isn't very good and I didn't manage to find it when I was writing the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I see, in that case it might be good to add an efn note or something similar that briefly explains this. Edward056686 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Actually, citing the Gazette with it in the note would also help so that a reader wouldn't need to deduce this themselves if they wanted to verify. Edward056686 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I slightly expanded the reference, does the new reference look alright to you? I think this article is very good otherwise. Edward056686 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC) I gave the article another read and I think it meets all six criteria now. Edward056686 (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks