Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australian Air Corps/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2018 [1].

---

Australian Air Corps

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Presenting a neglected formation of the Australian military (so neglected it didn't even have an article on WP till recently)... The Australian Air Corps has always been the poorer relation of the Australian Flying Corps of World War I and the Royal Australian Air Force formed in 1921, but between the disbandment of the AFC and the establishment of the RAAF, Australia's military air personnel needed a home, and that was provided by the short-lived AAC. Though always a stop-gap, it turned out to be a pretty successful venture -- rather than simply remain in a holding pattern, its personnel undertook some pioneering flights, one of which has been credited as marking the birth of aviation medicine in Australia. Most importantly, the corps laid the foundations for a permanent Australian air force. Not a long article but I think comprehensive given the subject's brief existence -- have at it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from Factotem

A few minor observations

• For Newton's Australian Air Aces", the full title appears to be "Australian Air Aces : Australian Fighter Pilots in Combat".
  • Done.
• The edition of Stephens's The Royal Australian Air Force: A History appears to have been published by the Melbourne branch of the OUP.
  • Done.
• There is a mix of ISBN-13 and ISBN-10; I understand that it's preferred at FAC to have all ISBNs consistently formatted.
  • Done.
• Refs #10, #22 & #33 are sourced to The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. Although you've used {{cite web}}, and this source does not appear in the References section, it appears to be a 634-page book. Is there any reason why it's not formatted as a book ref? More importantly, given the apparent size of the source, do the links you provide in the refs take us to the relevant pages? They're behind a paywall, so can't check myself.
  • It's a slightly anomalous situation: yes it's a book, but the online version is not a straight scan of the print book -- there are individual entries and no page numbers, thus cite web is more appropriate for the version I used (yes, the links take you to the individual entries if you have access).
• Based on the version of the article at 00:58, 5 April 2018

• I did a random check of refs #3, #9, #17, #21, #30 & #32, and the statements in the article are supported by the sources (though in the case of #21, you could probably reduce the page range to 69-71; minor niggle).
• Ref #14 does not appear to support the statements that Cole and Wrigley joined the AAC. Page 36 mentions both, but this is in a section that appears to be discussing recruitment into the RAAF, and p. 191 doesn't really say anything in support of the statement that I can see.

• Page 20 is the one: Legge did telegram Colonel Watt seeking his views on the officer proposed for appointment as the AAC's first flight commander and the other candidates being considered for subordinate posts as lieutenants. It was seemingly as a result of Watt's response on 9 December that Cole was selected for the senior job ... On 19 February Major Brown relinquished the command at Point Cook to Major Anderson, who now became the corps' senior officer.90 In February, too, Captain Wrigley took over as the adjutant of CFS, vice Kilby who departed to become aide-de-camp to the Governor-General. Further appointments in the AAC appear to have been made purely as the need arose. I think those are fairly clear but page 18 also states explicitly that Cole and Wrigley joined the AAC if we need more.

I missed that. I'm not sure why you need to include pp. 36 and 191 in that ref when p. 20 supports the statement made. But that all seems fine now. Factotem (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Googling "Australian Air Corps" did not reveal anything to suggest to me that the article is not comprehensive or a full survey of the available sources.

Factotem (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for taking the time to make such a thorough check -- much appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome. Forgot to add, I saw nothing to suggest that the sources are not of sufficient quality and reliability for FAC. Factotem (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And a few minor observations on prose

• ...because it had not then offered a commission to Frank McNamara, VC. Stumbled a little at this. I read "then" as a consequential statement, when in fact I think you're using it to mean "at that time".
  • Done.
• ...Australia began receiving 128 aircraft and associated spares and other equipment... Maybe "...Australia began receiving 128 aircraft with associated spares and other equipment..."?
  • Done.
• ...which operated in the waters off New Guinea and Australia's north,... Feels like the end of this clause is missing the word "coast".
  • Tweaked.
• The AAC performed several tasks in connection with the Prince of Wales' tour of Australia in 1920. Should be "Prince of Wales's" per MOS:POSS.
  • Hmm, "Wales's" seems to me a bit like the unpleasant-sounding exceptions POSS notes...

Understand what you mean, but I'm not sure that Wales is any different from boss, which explicitly takes the apostrophe s according to MOS:POSS. Also, the exception seems to be based on difficulties in pronunciation caused by the word following the possessive beginning with 's', and anyway the solution given is to reword to avoid, rather than allow as an exception. Factotem (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for belated response... I think "Wales's" is more akin to the "z" sound you get with "Jesus's", which is offered as an exception. Much as I value the MOS, it is a guideline after all and I think occasionally we have to ask ourselves if following it religiously actually produces a better article. I mean for the sake of a quiet life I suppose we could go with "the 1920 tour of Australia by the Prince of Wales", though I still think the way it is now is preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right, and I missed that bit. Personally I do not have a problem with the way you have written this, but I note that MOS suggests re-writing to avoid it rather than allowing as an exception. Up to you. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Factotem (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for those comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Image licensing counfounds me still, but by all the other FAC criteria I see no reason not to support. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Just what such an article should be, it seems to me as a layman. Clear, readable, and – I confidently assume – comprehensive. Well and widely sourced and cited and appropriately illustrated. All I can dredge up by way of queries are whether Captain Roy Phillipps had quite that many consonants, and whether "program" is now the accepted Australian spelling of "programme". Very happy to sign up as a supporter. – Tim riley talk 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and kind words, Tim. Yes, according to his personnel file (and other sources) "Phillipps" is correct despite looking somewhat odd. As for "program", that does seem common Australian usage, even though we still follow BritEng norms for the most part. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• Consider breaking into two paragraphs, the second starting with "The AAC's primary purpose".
  • Not averse to this but let's see how we go with the next few points.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• "maintain assets ... pioneering flights" — a bit unclear what you mean by these two terms, particularly the second (does the first basically mean keep the planes in good condition?).
  • "Assets" seems a good umbrella term as I understand the AAC was to maintain not only aircraft but other equipment and the Point Cook base. "Pioneering" is deliberate -- flights not made before.
• Having read the lead (but not yet the body), I don't have a good sense of how the AAC was different from the AFC and the RAAF, and thus what the point of changing from AFC to AAC to RAAF was.
  • Heh, you may be labouring under the misapprehension that things always happen for a reason in the military. Of course they do, but it's often hard to fathom just what the reason is... ;-)
• In general (final point, after reading the rest of the article), you could also expand the lead a bit: how many members, how many died, how many planes, maybe some details about some notable flights, and perhaps something about the legacy of the AAC (the final sentence in "Disbandment and legacy" does a good job of this).
  • Given the size of the article I think we want to guard against too much detail in the lead but I'll think on these last two points.
    • I've added a bit more about the point of the AAC as an interim force pending the formation of what became the RAAF, as well as some detail on key activities. I'd rather leave out the number of members because although we have what appear to be figures for other ranks at their peak, the same can't be said for the officers; partly because of that I think I'd rather leave the fatalities to the main body, and the total number of planes operated is also not clear because no source I have states just how many of the Imperial Gift planes were assembled and flown by the AAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• Anything that would work as a picture? Did they have a symbol/emblem?
  • Doesn't appear to have been a crest or emblem; as a temporary formation it'd be surprising if there were. Even units conceived as more-or-less permanent can wait years for a crest.
    • Maybe the B.E.2 in the Australian War Museum?
      • That's a thought, except that the flight for which it's remembered took place before the AAC was formed. I do normally like to put images in infoboxes but in this case I haven't seen one that's directly related to the AAC, representative of the entity as whole, and in good condition.

Establishment and control

• "were disbanded, and replaced" — again, why?
  • Sources don't go into special reasons for the disbandment of the AFC, it seems to have happened as part of the general demobilisation of wartime units. The purpose in raising the AAC is mentioned.
• "sole unit" — is unit a specific military term, and if so, could it be linked?
  • Hmm, I don't think I've ever been asked to link "unit" but there is a redirect so I don't mind using it.
• "The decision for such a service had been taken" — suggest "The decision to create such a service had been made"
  • Okay.
• "maintained, but he later" — suggest "maintained; Legge later"
  • Okay.

Personnel

• "to Frank McNamara, VC" — how about his rank instead of the post-nominal, and/or turn "VC" into a few words explaining his being awarded the Victoria Cross.
  • I liked the shorthand of "Frank McNamara, VC" but I can spell it out.
    • If you want it that way the VC should separately link to Victoria Cross, but I think your rephrasing is better.
• "in favor (sic)" — no chance he was just using American English?
  • Well even if he was using AmEng deliberately, it's not AusEng and therefore I expect readers will believe it's wrong and try to correct it if we don't sic it.
• "McNamara received a commission in the AAC that April" — why the reversal? Did Roy King thereafter join?
  • Sorry, I don't understand the issue. King refused a commission because McNamara had not at that time been offered one; in his January 1920 letter he in effect said "take McNamara instead of me"; the AAC did so that April.
    • Got it. I read it differently the first time (as Roy King saying 'I can't join something for which McNamara was refused'), but see now that King was ceding his spot in favor (or favour) of McNamara.
• "Hippolyte "Kanga" De La Rue ... was offered a commission" — if he accepted the offer, say "accepted a commission" instead.
  • Okay.
• "approval was given ..., to cope with ..." — minor suggestion to flip clauses, to "to cope with ..., approval was given..."
  • Okay.
• "According to The Age" — according to the newspaper (e.g., in an article), or according to an ad in it? I would clarify, and also add that The Age is a newspaper.
  • Although it reads a bit like an ad, it's a brief article, which is why I felt it was fine to express it as I did. I'm not used to having to spell out that newspapers are newspapers but I don't mind adding it.
    • Got it. I would actually prefer According to the newspaper The Age" or ever just your original "According to The Age" over "According to The Age newspaper".
      • I think I'd like to revert to "According to The Age..." then.
• "returned soldiers" — returned, or returning?
  • Returned is correct.
• "some compensation" — any word on how much?
  • Yes, can add.
• "they had been on duty" — technically this says that the families had been on duty.
  • Quite right -- tks for picking that up.
• "Wreckage that may have belonged" — just a point of curiosity, but what happened to the wreckage? Why couldn't they definitively determine whether it was from the plane in question? Was it just a few washed up pieces?
  • The source offers no further detail.

Equipment

• "The AAC's initial complement of aircraft included twenty" — suggest "The AAC's initial complement of aircraft included thirty-give airplanes: twenty ..."
  • The source doesn't explicitly state a grand total so I'd prefer to just mention the numbers of each type that the source does spell out.
• "their historic flight" — what historic flight?
  • Sorry, that probably was a bit esoteric -- it was the first flight from Melbourne to Darwin, so will clarify.
• "The aircraft included..." — any word on how many of each, since you gave the itemized count above?
  • The source I've used doesn't break it down; another may do, I'll have a look and itemise if feasible.
    • Thinking about this further, even if I could source the numbers for each aircraft type in this sentence I don't think it would be necessary in this article because only a few of each type were assembled and flown by the AAC (if I had exact number for these I'd include them but the key source, The Third Brother, doesn't specify). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable flights

• "Williams and Wackett flew" — perhaps "had flown".
  • Yes, of course.
• "New Guinea" — suggest linking to New Guinea.
  • Okay.
• "demonstrated that the Avro was not suited to tropical conditions" — any reason why?
  • Can add some specifics.
• "Second Peace Loan" — this is a but confusing, what is it exactly?
  • It's in the next few words: "for the sale of government bonds".
    • That says what it's related to, but not necessarily what it is. E.g., it could have been a promotion, that was intended to facilitate the sale of bonds.
      • I think I could safely say "to promote the sale of government bonds" if that works for you.
• "what may have been Australia's first aerial derby—at Serpentine," — you could probably use a comma instead of an em dash.
  • Could do but I felt we'd have a few too many commas around there.

Disbandment and legacy

• "achieve high rank" — should "rank" be plural?
  • As a general term I think it's currently expressed correctly.
• "According the RAAF's" — missing "to".
  • Yes, tks for picking that up!

Notes

• Any chance of sfn footnotes that link to "References"?
  • I do prefer the style I've employed as I believe it provides useful detail and find it more foolproof than the sfn format.
• Notes 4, 17, 27, 32: I don't think you really need the retrieval dates. The references are to newspapers/bulletins, which will forever remain stable; you don't have the risk of a continually updating source, since even if the links you provide ever go down, whatever was in The Age on 22 March 1920 will always be the same.
  • While I agree that a newspaper always exists, I think it's still common practice to add retrieval dates in such citations.
• Note 27: "lecture" should be capitalized.
  • I think article titles, whether in newspapers or elsewhere, generally use sentence case -- but you've still pointed out an inconsistency in "Imperial Gift Aircraft", which should use "aircraft".

References

• Stephens 2006/2001: Why two years? If you're using a particular edition, which can be labelled (e.g., "2nd ed), you should clarify.
  • It was first published (in hardback) in 2001; the edition I've used (in paperback) was published in 2006.
    • If you like, and if the edition was named in some way, you could do something like with Meadows 2004 in Pioneer Helmet#Bibliography, where it specifies "2010 digital ed."
      • I don't mind saying "2006 paperback ed." if you like, as that seems to be the only distinguishing feature of the one I used vs. the original.
• Consider adding {{free access}} or {{open access}} tags as appropriate.
  • Tks for pointing those out but I'd prefer to just stick to pointing out where access is restricted.

Looks great, Ian Rose. Comments/suggestions are above. Most are quite minor; probably the most important is the suggestion to expand the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, as I've indicated earlier I'll probably tackle the points re. the main body before looking at the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose, responded to a few specific comments above. I'll hold off on support until I see what changes (if any) you make to the lead, but looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, I think I've now acknowledged and/or actioned pretty well everything in some way/shape/form so pls see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good Ian Rose, particular the changes to the lead. Happy to support. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Ian, I've read this a few times and only have a few minor queries...

• "...that both DH.9As may not have had adequate preparation time..." - sounds awkward to me, perhaps 'that neither DH.9A may have had adequate' or just replace "both" with 'the'
  • Fair enough -- I think replacing "both" with "the" might work best.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• "...that the Avro was not suited to tropical conditions as its engine lacked the necessary power..." - I don't understand the connection. Guessing humidity? heat?
  • I don't think the source went into more detail than that but will check.
    • No further info in source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• "...to deliver the Prince's mail, which had arrived by ship in Fremantle..." Did they collect and then deliver? Did they fly from Point Cook to WA then back to Sydney? Over many legs?
  • Will check.
    • Actually the mail was transported from WA to South Australia by rail, and flown from there to Sydney by the AAC. The implication is the AAC flew from Point Cook to South Australia to pick it up, but not explicitly mentioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• References - Newton...Fyshwyck - Fyshwick?
  • Oops.
    • Fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for filling this gap in our aviation history. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for stopping by, Jenny. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for those Ian. Happy to sign support, JennyOz (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This one is looking about ready for promotion. Nikkimaria would you have some time to do an image review? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Checked images at the ACR, no changes since then. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.