Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Wilton (general)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

John Wilton (general) edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

John Wilton (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I started improving this article on Australia's senior soldier for most of the Vietnam era way back in 2012, partly to follow up my work on his predecessor as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Fred Scherger, and partly to see if I could add a general to my list of air marshal and admiral FAs. The "epitome of the professional army officer", as his biographer David Horner put it, John Wilton was as cool and "proper" as his clipped moustache and stern visage suggested, but a leader who always seemed to have the welfare of his men at heart. A great deal has been written about him, so I can only hope I've correctly balanced what to put in and what to leave out. One thing that surprised me was finding no evidence of any memorials (street names, parks, prizes, etc) so if any of you Army types or Canberra residents know of something that can be substantiated by sources or even your own photos, that'd be great. Thanks to Anotherclown for his helpful GA review that just concluded, and to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very impressive. I found one error: He was appointed to the General Staff Advanced Headquarters Australian Military Force, South West Pacific Area. That's not correct. SWPA had Land, Air and Naval components. The HQ of land one was Allied Land Forces, under Blamey. It had its headquarters (LHQ) in Melbourne. When MacArthur's GHQ moved up to Brisbane, Advance LHQ moved up there. In 1944, Advance GHQ moved to Hollandia, so another headquarters was formed, Forward Echelon Advance LHQ (Forland). This followed Advanced GHQ to Manila. Meanwhile, Advanced LHQ moved to Morotai to provide logistical support to the operations in Borneo. Wilton spent some time with Forland in Manila, before becoming Colonel GS (Staff Duties and Training) at Advanced LHQ on Morotai. Advanced LHQ became Advanced Headquarters Australian Military Forces (note the plural), but only when SWPA was dissolved on 2 September 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks Hawkeye; will check over the Horner bio tomorrow and recast that bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: Wilton was accorded a military funeral at Duntroon and cremated at Norwood Park Crematorium. We know where Norwood Park Crematorium is (since it is not far from my home) but I doubt if everyone would know. Unfortunately, neither Norwood nor Mitchell has an article, but I think it should read "... in the Canberra suburb of Mitchell." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at recasting the LHQ bit (as well as a few other minor things) and just settled for "Canberra" to broadly clarify the location of the Crematorium as Mitchell wasn't mentioned in any source I have. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan. I know we've discussed "in the event" before but for me "in any event" (or "as it happened") can sometimes connote something haphazard; anyway I left your change re. 3rd Division in New Guinea, where I think it worked, but recast the sentence re. withdrawal from Vietnam to avoid any such wordage (and incidentally remove the original passive voice). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the part you reworded, did "in the event" mean something like "but in fact" or "nevertheless"? Oxford Dictionaries gives "as it turned out", but as I recall, you objected to that substitution before. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge Dictionaries says "used to emphasize that what happened was not what you expected". That sounds like "instead" to me, or if emphasis is appropriate, "but in fact". Would those work in general? - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for those, Dan. Cambridge is probably closest to the meaning I had in mind, and indicates to me that it should be acceptable usage in Aus/BritEng articles. I think "however", "nevertheless" and "in fact" are best minimised in an encyclopaedia (though I don't shoot every example on sight). Anyway, as I've said, I'm quite happy to go with the wording we have now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Nice work as usual Ian. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "His eight-year tenure as Australia's senior Army officer" - this is a bit confusing: my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that the CCOSC wasn't in charge of the Army, but had a independent advisory/coordination type role.
    • Yes, that's my understanding as well; I meant that he was Australia's top-ranking Army officer as CGS and then CCOSC. If you think it's clearer to say it like that I could do so, and reword the earlier "Army's highest-ranking position" to "professional head of the Army", which I'd considered doing anyway...
      • I'm not sure that that's an accurate representation of his role as CCOSC (which seems to have been a pretty toothless type of position). How about "His eight-year tenure as Australia's senior Army officer and head of the Australian military covered almost the entire period of the nation's involvement in the Vietnam War." - this seems to be in line with what the quote from the official history in ref 81 says. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mmm, I think we're agreed that CCOSC didn't directly command the armed forces, which is why I'd be leery of "head of the Australian military". What about "His eight-year tenure as senior officer of first the Army and then the armed forces..." or words to the effect? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the couple had two sons and a daughter" - should this be "the couple later had two sons and a daughter"?
    • Heh, I figured the "later" was a given and I think it's often expressed as I did it...
  • "Port Kembla in Sydney" perhaps just "Port Kembla"
    • Yeah, I know they're linked but I figured it was helpful for the uninitiated to not have to follow those links.
      • My understanding is that the Wollongong area isn't considered part of Sydney (especially at this time), so the wording is a bit inaccurate. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Arrgh, I don't believe it, I was confusing Port Kembla with Kurnell -- of course you're right, thank you... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although not strongly religious, he made a point of attending church parade regularly" - does the source say why? (was he hoping to improve Duntroon's culture?)
    • I think it was simply to set an example, will see.
  • Can more be said about Wilton's time in Thailand? Given that there was considered to be a high chance of war breaking out in the country, with SEATO being heavily involved in its defence, this looks to have been an important position.
    • Sure, I initially had just a line about the posting, then thought it was worth adding the strategic importance he saw in it, but I could probably build it up a bit more.
  • "Phước Tuy Province" and "Vũng Tàu": I'd suggest using non-diacritic versions of these per the common usage in English language reliable sources
    • Heh, after all the trouble I went to to use the diacritic... ;-) No, that's probably fair enough, the major sources don't seem to employ it.
      • I have to confess that I'm not sure who won the Wikipedia diacritic wars ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wilton also resisted suggestions to rotate the Australian task force out of Phước Tuy" - it might be worth elaborating on this (from memory, the argument from the US was that Phuoc Tuy had been largely pacified, and that the good quality Australian forces could be better used elsewhere) Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I think it was something along those lines, will check/add. Tks for stopping by, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay Nick, done all I said I would above, happy to discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tweaked the text for the last point: it seems that Wilton was talking about a hypothetical situation here. I'd suggest fixing the Port Kembla issue above, and am happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tks Nick, pls see above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • BTW, Anotherclown checked image licensing at GAN but if you (or Hawkeye) get a chance to verify for the purposes of this review, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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/John_Wilton_(general)&oldid=662734234"