Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frederick Scherger

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 –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Scherger edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Featured article candidates/Frederick Scherger/archive1

This article traces the career of an officer who, if perhaps not quite as vital to the history of the Royal Australian Air Force as Air Marshal Sir Richard Williams, arguably outshone him in terms of the impact he had on Australia's military and society in general, and was certainly at the top for achievements in rank and office being the RAAF's first (de facto) Chief of the Defence Force and its first Air Chief Marshal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very well written article. Just a few quick edits to be made.

There are quite a few contractions that I noticed that should be expanded per MOS.

Summary style should be used where there are a series of subpages.

Not totally necessary, but the references section should be formatted with {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} tags for visual appeal.

Otherwise, I give my support. The prose is well written, references are correctly formatted including ISBN numbers, and all the sections contain concise accurate information. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for review/support, mate. I agree about reducing the size of the references due to the number of items and have done as you suggested. Re. contractions and summary style, could I trouble you for an example or two of each as I admit nothing leaps out at me there (but I may too close given the length of time I spent on it)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This article has "Featured article" written all over it. I hope to see it at FAC.

I'm curious about why you chose the Air Commodore photo instead of the nicer CAS one below for the infobox.
- "Chose"? "Agonised" more like! Yeah, I spent a lot of time determining the best way to spread the relatively few PD or GNU-free portraits I had through the article and, though I totally agree the CAS one is logical for the infobox, it meant I had nothing to use in the CAS/COSC section of the main body - and the Air Commodore one is a good 'un, even if not representative of his most 'known' period. Our friends at AWM took away a great one of him handing over as COSC to Wilton, which used to be 'copyright clear' but is now 'AWM copyright' and, despite a couple of attempts in writing on my part, they've refused to release it under GNU (which the RAAF was happy to do for the CAS pic - go figure). The pic of him as ACM in Legacy I think needs to be there as it's clearly one taken in retirement, not while he was serving. Of course I'm open to suggestions about rearranging the pics to get a decent spread... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to graduation, he had been selected for an Air Force secondment, which was later made permanent." Are you saying that he did not volunteer to join the RAAF? (It was lucky though; he would never have made lieutenant colonel in the Army by 1939.)
- Don't believe any source I have actually says "volunteer" so I wasn't going to assume, but will check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Confirming Stephens and service record in personnel file just say he was seconded, not that he volunteered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what he was awarded the Air Force Cross for? It was his only award for gallantry.
- Actually you're right, his personnel file did say something (not terribly exciting as I remember it, though) so I should be able to expand a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has plenty of pictures, but if you want one of him on Aitape, there's one at "File:Wurtsmith and Sverdrup at Aitape.jpg"
- The 10OG/1TAF section could fit another, so I'll check it, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haven't included but might still add it since it's the year before the current 10OG/1TAF shot I have, partly depends on results of copyright status check re. another possible CAS pic, which would allow a rejig of the existing images and perhaps even get the current CAS one back in the infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"programme" (British spelling) should be "program" (Australian spelling)
- Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Three squadrons from No. 9 Operational Group were assigned to the Wing as replacements" any idea which ones? The text could be confusing as you say that the Vengeances were withdrawn as inferior, leaving the reader to infer that the replacements were a different type of aircraft.
- Yep, that could be confusing, should be able to clarify somehow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Annoyingly, Odgers supplies the numbers of two squadrons but not the third, so rather than invite further queries about why I was doing the same, I've just specified the aircraft types they operated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"10OG itself was moved from Nadzab to Cape Gloucester to permit USAAF units with more modern equipment to occupy vital airfields on the Allied front line." That's not true. The need was for longer ranged aircraft, like the P-38 Lightning, which the RAAF did not operate. Whereas the short airstrips at Cape G. were well-suited to the Kittyhawks.
- Granted that was my interpetation of Odgers from memory after Nick suggested clarification of that point - will go back and re-read/alter as necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Scherger became not only the first RAAF officer to attain four-star rank, but also the first Duntroon graduate... his position was further strengthened by the promotion as he now out-ranked the three service heads." He was also the first Chairman COSC to hold four-star rank. Wells was only a three-star. You should make this explicit.
- Fair enough, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Quickly dissuaded during visits to Britain and the US that weapons existed which could be delivered by the RAAF's Sabre fighters or even its Canberra bombers," That's not true. I've taken the liberty of adding a little text at this point.
- I think the part about being dissuaded that such weapons existed, etc, is accurate based on Stephens but admittedly I was simplifying for the sake of brevity as the article grew (I could have said more on the F-111/TSR-2 thing as well but wanted to get the damn expansion out there as it's been so long coming). In any case, I like your addition and the further sourcing/perspective from Reynolds is useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tweaked a little but essentially kept your additions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider splitting the sections about CAS and COSC
- Could - will see how we go as review progresses. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks for your comments, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: excellent work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in the bit about the incident at Laverton just before he went to the UK, it's not entirely clear to me which officer ended up resigning his commission, the "wronged husband" who Scherger knocked down with a poker, or the "adulterer" (surely that was "conudct unbecoming" as well?) David Underdown (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was just working on that when you looked it over, mate, so hopefully a bit clearer now (though I agree, you'd expect both would've been asked to depart)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:52, 19 November 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.