The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Henry Wrigley/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominating for ACR this article on one of the RAAF's deeper thinkers as well as a top pilot, credited with developing a de facto air power doctrine and also first to fly across Australia, south to north (but not back again, and you'll have to read the article to find out why!) Any and all comments welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is another great article, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach the A-class criteria:
  • Did Wrigley play any part in the discussions over whether a female branch of the RAAF should be formed?
    • Most of the info centers on his selection of Director but I can probably mine my WAAAF source book for a bit more on his part in the overall organisation.
      • As foreshadowed above, basically able to flesh out the selection of Director. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was Wrigley's role as the commander of the RAAF Overseas Headquarters - at present the article says what he couldn't do, but not what his responsibilities were. Do you know if he played any role in the abortive moves to establish an Australian operational headquarters within Bomber Command? (several senior officers were sent over to set up either a wing or a group [I can't remember which]), but nothing came of this).
  • Did Wrigley take part in renegotiating the terms of the Empire Air Training Scheme?
    • He's not really mentioned by name as doing much more than I've said but I should be able to say more about the role's duties from what Williams had to do as the first incumbent.
      • Added more on role, and negotiating as well as signing revisions to EATS. Re. the proposed RAAF Bomber Group, that was back in Williams' time in the role (I mentioned it in his article) and if Wrig was directly involved somewhere there I'm not aware of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't say what Wrigley did between 1946 and 1966.
    • Heh, as ever, if any of the little bios I have said so, I'd report it. Even Who's Who is silent - I guess even great men have to rest...
  • The coverage of his lectures in the 1920s probably best belongs in the "Between the wars" section, as this helps to explain why he was selected for staff-type positions during the war, rather than operational commands. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might explain it but I don't think any source I have draws a direct link of that nature. Will think about mentioning the lectures earlier but I believe the doctrinal stuff as a whole is best treated in the legacy section at the end. Thanks for review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My comments are now addressed and I think the A class criteria are now fully met. The missing 20 years between 1946 and 1966 may be a problem in a FAC though, even if it is impossible to find sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks Nick. Heh, just this minute added a little bit more on formation of the WAAAF - sounds like he had a more realistic view of the need for it than some of his contemporaries. Re. FAC, you've read my mind, I'm not actually planning to take this one beyond A-Class unless a little more info comes my way as I've pretty well exhausted what there is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments – excellent article, just a few minor issues before I can support:

• Is the exact date of Wrigley's enlistment in the AFC known?
  • Done.
• When was he awarded the DFC?
  • Done.
• When was he promoted to captain, and what is meant by the addition of "eventually"? Was the promotion overdue, or some such?
  • Don't know promotion date but fixed wording.
• Is it really necessary to attach "RAF" after Burnett's name?
  • Shorthand indicating that his daughter was not Australian.
    • Fair enough. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "negotiating revisions to the terms Empire Air Training Scheme" - I think an "of the" is meant to be in there.
  • Already done.
• It might be an idea to identify the third, and middle, person in File:SUK14422Wrigley1945.jpg, as he really is the vector in the photograph to which one's eyes are drawn, but is basically neglected.
  • Done.
• The abbreviation of "EATS" is not previously spelt out after the mention of the Empire Air Training Scheme.
  • Done.
• There is inconsistency in the spacing of endashes in the succession boxes.
  • I don't think so; month-year date ranges generally take spaces round the dash, year-only ranges don't. If it's a concern I don't mind losing the months in the Laverton date range, I'm not really that big on these things.
    • Perhaps you're right, but it just looks terribly inconsistent with the differences between the two. I think it would be best to drop the months from one, or add them, if possible, to the other. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Out they go...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Both File:UK2063Wrigley1944.jpg and File:MEC1144Wrigley1943.jpg are missing alt text.
  • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tks for review, Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am now satisfied that all of my comments have been addressed so I am switching to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I believe this one meets the A class criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.