- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 15 October 2011 [1].
Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for FAC following successful GAN and MilHist ACR earlier this year, and recent addition of a little bit more data on his post-war civilian life, which I felt was too thin before but is hopefully sufficient now. As for the bloke himself, though his status as an ace may have given him his prime case for notability on WP, I found him more interesting and admirable as a leader the more I researched him, and I think you will too as you read it. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whew, that was fast! Tks for that Dan -- and no prob with your sole edit, I wasn't that happy with the wording before either... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure, I wish they were all this easy (but then I'd be out of a job ...) - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether Herington shortened citations still include weblinks
- Ugh, believe it or not I did a quick check before this to see if I'd complied here with your comments from the last FAC and still managed to miss a couple of things... Will do.
- Why include the date range part of the title in Gillison citations but not Herington or Odgers?
- FN 35: formatting
- Not sure what the issue is with this one...
- You're duplicating the location info, and the italicization is odd. This could be fixed by piping the newspaper wikilink differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, what fooled me was that there was a similar instance later on that you didn't mention... ;-) That's the way the National Library's newspaper service formats citations -- I generally edit them down but hadn't this time... Fixed now, along with the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 46: World War W2? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Must've copied the format, including typo, from a previous one -- sorry! Tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Just to prove that I did read it...
- In the lead it says that he " Jeffrey transferred to the RAAF reserve" implying that it was voluntary, but in the last section "Jeffrey's commission was terminated on 6 June 1946. Having been transferred to the RAAF reserve upon his demobilisation," implying that it was not. I know some senior RAFF personnel were forced into retired after the war.
- Most of the RAAF blokes I've written about whose commissions were terminated after the war were either WWI vets or short-service/EATS entries who joined during (and effectively only for the duration of) the war. Jeffrey is an interesting case because although he joined before the war it was initially as an active reservist, not Permanent Air Force, and even though he transferred to the PAF before the war started, that was only short-service, so out he went in June 1946. Anyway, to deal directly with your valid point, if I were to change the bit in the lead to "Jeffrey was transferred to the RAAF reserve", that would reconcile things, yes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it that we do not know his father's first name?
- No, nor do we know his father's profession or his mother's name (or even initials!) -- Nick brought up in the ACR that all this heavily devalues the point of using that tidbit at all and I agreed, offering to remove it entirely if it annoyed people -- the offer still stands... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is okay. For an Army guy I would have looked at his enlistment papers, which would have listed his NOK. (Which in the RAAF I believe stands for Notify On Krashing. :) Unfortunately, since he was in the RAAF after the war, his record is in A12372, which is physically tantalisingly close by, just a short walk away, but NYE. (I took the liberty of adding his service number, which makes it much easier to look him up.) If he had been born just three years earlier, we could have looked up his birth certificate online. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, you probably guessed I searched for his service record online but of course it hasn't been digitised... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What was the 1935 'B' course?
- The reservists' flying training course -- the Permanent Air Force cadets did the 'A' course at Point Cook. Would you like me to clarify with "1935 'B' (reservists) course" or something similar? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would make it much clearer! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a wing leader the wing's commander?
- Heh, no, and if I could find a good clear definition I'd probably write a stub on it. "Wing leader" appears to be sort of the executive officer or 2IC of the wing, especially in the air. The commander of a wing was (and still is) generally referred to as the "Officer Commanding" (as opposed to a squadron's "Commanding Officer"). I'm not sure if there's any way I can explain the role's function w/o getting into OR territory as I can't recall anyone ever explaining it in the sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess they thought that all the readers were in the RAAF... Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it No. 1 (Fighter) Wing but No. 234 Wing RAF? (To be fair, it is No. 1 Wing in the infobox) For that matter, why No. 3 (Army Cooperation) Squadron but No. 75 Squadron and not No. 75 (Fighter) Squadron?
- I generally go with how units are referred to in the source I'm using for that particular point, and inclusion of purpose is not always consistent. I don't think anyone gave a purpose for No. 234 Wing RAF in that fashion but I'm happy to add "(Fighter)" to No. 75 Sqn (and No. 76 while I'm at it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be nice to consistently add (Fighter). I can accept that RAF wings serve no purpose. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should "newly delivered" have a hyphen? (Where's Dank?)
- No, per MOS and Chicago. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There you have it, I've learned from the master... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chicago makes me look good. Thanks for all the reviews guys ... with all the FACs up on the board, we need them. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"archetypal Ian Rose article ... detailed, well researched, well written".
Cheers
Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very kind -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - captions are fine, image licensing checks out under pre-1955 Austalian rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just one little comment that doesn't affect my support:
- Post-war career, " he sought readmission to the PAF in August the same year, without success." Do we know why he was turned down?
- No-one says so explicitly, unfortunately, although we can surmise that with the radical shrinkage of the RAAF following the war even one with a record like his wasn't thought to be needed. This of course begs the question, why accept him in 1951, the likely (and of course again not specifically mentioned!) reason being to serve as backfill for personnel going off to the Korean War and Malayan Emergency... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very nice article - great work, Ian! Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, Dana! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.