Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Lloyd Waddy/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [1].

John Lloyd Waddy

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Nominating this article on one of the RAAF's top-scoring fighter aces, who went on to become a New South Wales parliamentarian, because I think it fits the criteria. Currently GA, and A-Class on two Wikiprojects. Any and all comments welcome...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 18:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the newspapers.nla.gov.au url is still being advertised from the main page of the NLA website http://www.nla.gov.au so this is probably just a temporary glitch. David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right David - I checked just after OddName's post and the whole site was not responding; it's now working fine as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nla links are working now. :) --an odd name 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I think that this article is close to the FA criteria, but needs a little bit more work:
    • The statement that his half-share in a kill on 9 December 1941 was his 'first confirmed victory' is a bit imprecise - were there any unconfirmed victories before this? (if not, 'confirmed' could be left out to avoid confusion).
    • Do we know what 'Falkiner, Caldwell Pty Ltd' sold?
    • Was it unusual for ex-NSW ministers to continue to use 'Honourable' as their title? I thought that this is a standard courtesy Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same here but apparently not; my official source Parliamentary Record 1824–1999 makes a point of listing all retired MPs so entitled so 'twould appear it's not automatic... Cheers,
  • Support comments above addressed Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Decline 1c 2c
    1. 2c 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      1. Location nitpick, we all know Oxford for Osprey is Oxford, UK. Please specify due to US locations. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Date formatting inconsistent. Author (Year) Title Provenance. or Author Title Provenance Year. Footnotes and bibliography conflict. Pick one. Accepting response below, the origin of the problem is the templates being ickypoo. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I must've missed where I've used year in the footnotes - can you be more specific? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        fn 11 16 25 31 43 45 46. Compare ^ "Australian Industry SOS". Flight: p. 635. 19 October 1956. Retrieved on 25 September 2009. to ^ (19 October 1956) "Australian Industry SOS". Flight: p. 635. which is the style consistent with the references Draper, W.S. (ed.) (1980). Who's Who in Australia 1980. Melbourne: The Herald and Weekly Times. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (Some one probably needs to produce Template:cite turabian with an autoshort option to avoid this style error produced by use of cite book in articles where it probably is a lesser option) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the conflict between consistently using the citation templates provided vs. enforcing a consistent style by manual formatting. I don't think it's something that should hold up promotion of an individual article. From memory (don't have time to experiment right now), cite journal renders Last, First (Date). Title etc... (like cite book) when Last and First are present but Title. Work. Date etc... if not. Frankly I prefer the latter to (Date). Title etc... even if it's not consistent with cite book. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      3. Multiple Author inconsistency. In bibliography: Last, First; Last2, First2. In notes, Last & Last2. Easiest solution, change notes to Last; Last2, format. Pick a solution. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        While it may appear more consistent, I'm not sure it's really an improvement, but I'll give it a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Another reason for someone to write cite turabian Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      4. fn16 requires a full citation (Staff, "R.A.A.F. Pilot's Greetings," The Canberra Times," 2 April 1943, p. 2. at Australian Newspapers. Retrieved.)Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, a case of not tidying up early draft shorthand... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      5. fn32 and fn45 require full cites, ala fn16. Year, issue, page, etc...Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      6. Recheck spacing throughout, see fn30. versus fn25. Are you going to non-space or space page numbers?
        Ho-hum, the London Gazette template puts spaces in, I tend not to, I guess the template wins... ;-)
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      7. Recheck punctuation throughout, see fn1 versus fn2. Ending with fullstops or not? cheers Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Applying a similar rule to image captions, i.e. if it's all one phrase like fn2, no full stop. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Non decline related Comment: Footnote raiding from Alexander 2004, you don't use Garrisson, Air Commodore A D: Australian Fighter Aces 1914-1953. Air Power Studies Centre Fairbairn ACT and Australian War Memorial Canberra ACT 1999. . Why?
      See next point re. Garrison. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Support related comment: 1c mostly met, would like to hear why more detailed footnote raiding from sources wasn't done. Did you exhaust them rapidly, or are sources like Garrison1999Australian redundant given Thomas2002Tomahawk? Also would like to hear if Sabretache is a Highest Quality source, and about the publishers Aerospace (ACT) which moved suburbs 1995/6 and might be a backyard press, Also Kangaroo, Kenthurst NSW, and National Frenchs Forest NSW. This isn't a problem in 1c, the other sources meet the Highest Quality requirements, would like to know. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to jump in, Sabretache is the journal of the Military Historical Society of Australia (see [2]) and is very reliable. The author of the article in question, Kristen Alexander, is currently one of Australia's leading air historians, and has had two well-regarded biographies of RAAF figures published by a major firm in the last few years. Aerospace Publications is a small firm, but what they publish is reliable and works put out by them are held in the collection of university libraries such as the Australian Defence Force Academy. At the time the book in question was published they were the publisher of Australian Aviation magazine, which claims to have been Australia's largest selling aviation magazine at the time (see: [3]), though it's now owned by a different company). Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Nick. As far as the other comments go, Garrison is rendered redundant not so much by Thomas (though partly) but more by Newton's similarly-titled/themed Australian Air Aces. The general advantage Newton has is that for a number of the subjects (though not Waddy) he produces claim-by-claim analyses which Garrison does not. As far as Kangaroo and National go, have to admit I probably couldn't tell you anything about them you wouldn't find yourself on the web, but if the question relates to the reliability of the works I'd tend to look at the authors' pedigrees and their sourcing. As well as being a writer at Australian Aviation for at least 6 years, Newton's also been published by the Australian War Memorial, and his Australian Air Aces and Clash of Eagles rely on combat reports, unit histories and other official records from the RAAF Historical Section and the AWM. Odgers is one of Australia's official historians of World War II, and Air Force Australia is a book that was updated and republished four times in the 1980s and 90s. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Lead
He then commanded... or he later commanded
Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Family etc. Second sentence/second paragraph about brothers is long and complicated. Can you break it up?

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WWII

:Kittyhawks aren't linked?

The link for Kittyhawks and Tomahawks is the same, to Curtiss P-40; I've hopefully equated the two by removing Tomahawk from the piped link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The RAAF's top-scoring ace, Clive "Killer" Caldwell, befriended and mentored him, and later became godfather to Waddy's daughter.
Waddy's first operational sortie was as Caldwell's wingman; he found the ensuing dogfight so fast and confusing that he had no idea what was happening and afterwards had to ask the more experienced pilot how things had gone In his first operational sortie, as Caldwell's wingman, he found the ensuing dogfight fast and confusing. Having no idea what had happened, afterwards he asked a more experienced pilot how things had gone....?
Tend to prefer the wording as I have it because I think it flows better that way, but still open to suggestions; "the more experienced pilot" refers to Caldwell without repeating his name in the same sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just that passive or almost passive voice. It's an awkward sentence. In his first operational sortie, he found the dogfight fast and confusing; when it was over, he asked Caldwell how things had gone...? (Caldwell's lucky he didn't get his wing shot off, I suppose). Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 December, however, he registered his first victory—in a Tomahawk that had previously been Caldwell's personal mount...
Felt the "however" aided the flow, implying that while he was confused in his early combat, by December he'd matured to the stage where he'd made his first kill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By 9 December, he had become more accustomed to the dog-fighting pace, and made his first "kill" flying Caldwell's old Tomahawk. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
gazetted links to London Gazette...is this really what you mean?
Yep, this is a fairly standard expression/link in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I didn't realize it linked to the gazette. We need an article, or stub or something that explains it better. Comes from the old times when officers usually purchased their commissions, instead of being gazetted (announced) based on their merit. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gazetted (unpiped) redirects to Gazette, which does also explain the use as a verb, but then so does London Gazette in the "Tradition" section. If you know what the use of Gazetted means in this context, you don't need to follow the link, if you don't you get taken to a highly relevant article, so I don't quite see the problem here. David Underdown (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe it could link to the traditions section....? That would make more sense. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:American air medal....US air medal? American could mean a lot of places (including Canada, although probably then you'd say Canadian).

No, you're right - altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post War Career

:known as the Citizen Air Force (CAF)... known informally? also called .... colloquially known as....

Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:close polling booths at 6 PM rather than 8 PM so as to expedite the reporting of results, and to change the term "Christian name" to "given name" on candidate nominations, in order to reflect changing community attitudes close polling booths at ... to expedite... The provisions also changed the term "Christian name" to "Given name" on candidate nominations, to reflect changing community attitudes....?

Again I felt it flowed in one sentence but have trimmed a few unnecessary words. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: Link on Augean? (and capitalized, as it is in article title in Bibliography?)

Not sure about linking Augean, since the reference work is linked and the writer describes the meaning there. Have capitalised for consistency though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neat article! I like it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Remaining quibbles are trivial, and editor can adjust or not depending on his whims. This is a very well done article, good sources (reliable), and well cited. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General - I realise that while responding to everyone's points I haven't actually thanked people for taking the time to review, which I usually like to do whether they're supportive or not, because that time and effort is not something to be taken for granted - so a general thank-you to all for your input thus far... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good article, well referenced and good read. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Firstly, the title of the article is wrong: Wikipedia:Use common names. Secondly, the article is incomplete: you've got three paragraphs about his being one of the most senior politicians in his state of his era, compared to two about his comparatively non-notable business career. What's there is fantastic, but it really needs more on his political career to be reasonably weighted - another couple of paragraphs would make it grand. Rebecca (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Rebecca. On the naming, we needed disambiguation due to more than one person called John Waddy having a WP article. I made a judgement call that including his middle name was an appropriate way to achieve that, and I'd prefer to hear additional opinions before changing as so far yours is the only objection. As to the weighting, unfortunately the information I've included on his political career is as much as I've been able to discover through a good deal of searching libraries and the web, short of mining further the parliamentary record, and I'm loathe to utilise such primary sources more than I've already done in order to give some examples of bills he sponsored. If you're aware of likely sources I've missed please point them out to me. Further, the two paragraphs that you suggest focussed on his "comparatively non-notable business career" in fact also discuss his leadership of the RAAF Reserve and his involvement in veterans' groups, so I believe the space allocated to his parliamentary career shows quite reasonable balance. In any case, while his political career is important, it must be remembered that his status as a fighter ace in North Africa alone would make him notable enough for a WP article, and I've in fact probably given less space to that period of his career than the political phase. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something like John Waddy (politician) may be a more appropriate means of disambiguation; I really dislike seeing middle names where the person wasn't actually known by their full name. I don't think there's any need to use primary sources for his political career; I find it hard to believe there isn't a single book on the relatively-influential Askin government, and in any case, there's bound to be a ton of newspaper articles from the era that could shed further light. Rebecca (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I considered "(politician)" but, as I've said, he was just as notable for his air force career so one could also argue for John Waddy (RAAF officer), hence my plumping for the more neutral name we have now. As far as the Askin government goes, I've combed a number of general NSW political books with only those you see cited mentioning Waddy, though if I can get hold of The Prince & the Premier I'll double-check that I haven't missed anything useful there. I already searched unsuccessfully in the Mitchell Library and NAA online for the sort of biographical cuttings held for some public figures before I commenced the article in earnest. Coming back to your earlier point, however, I'm still not sure about your interpretation of the relative weight given to various phases of his career as they appear in the article at present, because the political part occupies a significant portion of it, certainly compared to other aspects of his post-war life. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, this looks good. I'll try to go through it in the next few days, but my RL work is heavy at the moment. Linking comments from the top:
    • "As a [[Fighter aircraft|fighter]] pilot during [[World War II]]. The "Fighter aircraft" article has a WWII section; you may or may not wish to section link (unless your point is to distinguish from "bomber" definitionally at the top of that link-target. Please note there's a separate article Fighter pilot, which may or may not be relevant. WWII—Isn't there an article on Australia in WWII, or even the Australian airforce in WWII? Please make the links as focused as possible.
      • Thanks for your review so far, Tony. Didn't know the fighter pilot article, that will be the preferable link. Re. WWII, I've always just linked the general world war articles in the past but I think you're right to suggest a more precise link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox pipe to Minister for Health lost info; I forgot to check for the other Minister bits.
    • Probably "referendum" and "daylight saving" are too common to require linking. Focus them on your valuable links, of which there are so many.
    • Most of the linking is very good.
  • Is the Tomahawk image specific to the Africa section? If not, text sandwiching could be avoided by placing it directly above the Morotai pic in the SW Pacific section.
  • Sorry to be a MoS bore: import–export. Space before and after ... Tony (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Lloyd_Waddy/archive1&oldid=1077423314"