Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frank Hubert McNamara

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 EyeSerenetalk 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hubert McNamara edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)
Toolbox

Frank McNamara occupies a unique place in Australian military history as the country's first air VC, and the only one to achieve the honour in World War I. Recently brought this one up to B-Class and have now expanded further to the stage where I think it's ready for ACR. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - comments addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, I would substitute "won" for "awarded". This is more of a suggestion then a requirement, as I'm not a very big fan of "won" being used in this context as it sounds link he won the medal in a raffle or something.
    • Heh, I half expected a comment from you on that as I know your feelings on it - but then you know my feelings on repetition! Shall we see how others feel and if they aren't sure about it either then I'll drop the 'won'?
  • I think "recommended for" can be removed, as he was awarded the VC, and it also clashes with the repetition of "for".
    • No problem being hoist on my own petard - but I think I'll end having to repeat something somewhere no matter what - will have a think.
  • Is it known what he studied at the University of Melbourne before the First World War?
    • We might infer it was a BA since a couple of studies say he 'resumed' his studies at uni in 1928, but I don't think I have anything definite there.
  • I think the information about his militia service should be included in the "Early life" section, as, at the moment, you are jumping from 1914 back to 1911.
    • Heh, thought about that but quite liked keeping all the military stuff together instead of applying a strict chronology - will have a look.
  • I think further information about the actual mission McNamara was on when he earned the VC should be included. For instance, introducing that four aircraft—McNamara among them—from No. 1 Squadron AFC were detailed to attack a section of railway line near Tel el Hesi, and that one of McNamara's bombs exploded only a few metres from his aircraft thus wounding him (in what he likened to being hit by a sledgehammer) first would be best, and then going into that Rutherford was shot down, etc. Perhaps also mention that he was wavering in and out of consciousness during the flight back.
    • Again, that's another way of doing it - will have a look. BTW, it already mentions he was close to blacking out on the flight back.
  • Who was the General Officer Commanding Middle East Brigade, RFC, who recommended McNamara for the VC?
    • I don't know, do you (seriously)?!
      • No bloody idea; hence the question. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly Sefton Brancker, supposedly the first GOC RFC ME, but Air of Authority website says he only assumed this title in October 1917. Again, in absence of any definite info I don't think we should surmise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my sources (well, the only one I had a quick look at) stated that McNamara had a Bachelor of Arts with honours.
    • Don't think that disagrees with what I have here, which is a BA in International Relations. My source (Helson) mentions second-class honours, which I wasn't going to bother with, but I could if you think it helps.

Overall, a very nice article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tks for taking the time to review, Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Well, all of my conerns have been address, so I'm happy to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No problems as far as I can see. Nice work.Question. I notice that the AWM logos have been removed from the images uploaded from the AWM site. I thought that AWM stipulated that their logos could not be removed if their images were used elsewhere? Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I have no strong feeling either way on the logos being there or not, however my understanding from previous input to ACR/FAC articles by image people here is that such watermarks should be removed if the image is public domain, since AWM doesn't actually own them in that case - so I do that. If I've misunderstood something, I'd be happy to do them again with watermarks intact (well, not happy, as uploading new or updated images is quite time-consuming, but you know what I mean)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always found it rather irritating that the AWM tries to own all of these public domain images, but I guess they're trying to raise money to support the memorial by selling higher quality versions of the images. I wasn't sure if we were ignoring their stipulations on their images or trying to follow them. I'm fine either way. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AWM has now labeled all their older images as having a copyright status of 'copyright exprired - public domain' and has made the watermarks tiny, so we're free to do anything with them. I agree that it's a shame that they're not uploading larger versions of the images though (with a few random exceptions). Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yet another great article which meets the A-class criteria - you're starting to make this look easy Ian! My suggestions for further development are:
      • Heh, many tks Nick but I can hear my better half crying "Easy?! Then why does he spend so much bloody time on them...?!"
    • The first para on McNamara's WW1 service should specify that he volunteered for overseas service (with the AIF originally?); while members of the milita were called up for domestic service, they couldn't be sent overseas
      • You're right but I don't think I got any source stating explicitly that he volunteered for o/s service. What I have is Dennis spelling out that as militia he was mobilised for service "in Australia" (as already mentioned) and I've now added that he volunteered for pilot training.
    • The sentence which starts with 'Beyond facing capture' is a bit awkward
      • I agree, my original line didn't bother with that. Then I thought I'd better clarify but since you don't think much of the way it reads either, that's good enough for me...!
    • It should be noted that McNamara's posting to No. 4 Sqn also involved being sent to France (is this where he met his future wife?)
      • Actually, the only source I can recall that mentions where 4SQN was based (Macklin) says it was in England at the time - not certain about that and didn't think it was too important. I've clarified where he met his wife, though.
    • The bit on McNamara being appointed to command an air recon unit in Australia during World War I is really interesting (for me at least!) - do you know where this was stationed and what aircraft it used? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately only Macklin mentions it at all and he just says an air recon unit in Victoria (which probably means Point Cook but he's not explicit). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 13 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Frank_Hubert_McNamara&oldid=1084283823"