Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thomas Baker (aviator)
- 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.
- Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it now meets the criteria. I just launched this article on an Australian soldier, aviator and flying ace of the First World War into the mainspace last night after quite a bit of work in my sandbox. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recently reviewed and passed this for GA, and see no reason for it not to get the nod at A-Class level as well. Structure, prose, detail, referencing and illustration are all up to standard. Dabs, external links and alt text all okay according to checkers. My one very minor caveat is that for this level I'll want to check out another source in the Mitchell that I use for ace bios, on the chance there may be anything further to add, but I expect this'd be more in the nature of detail than anything fundamental. Well done as usual! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ian; living in a somewhat regional area kind of prevents access to decent libraries. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newton's Australian Air Aces (p.20) summarises his score as 7 aircraft and 1 balloon destroyed plus 4 aircraft out of control, with 8 of the victories being over the "formidable" Fokker DVII. That's all he adds to what you have and I don't think it's that vital since you go into some detail with the combats, but FWIW... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for having a look, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newton's Australian Air Aces (p.20) summarises his score as 7 aircraft and 1 balloon destroyed plus 4 aircraft out of control, with 8 of the victories being over the "formidable" Fokker DVII. That's all he adds to what you have and I don't think it's that vital since you go into some detail with the combats, but FWIW... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: a well written, cited and illustrated biography which meets A class criteria in my opinion. I only have a couple of comments:
- the name "Garrison" is spelt differently in the Notes (Citation # 4) and References section;
- Good spot; fixed. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 11th Royal Australian Engineers? This term seems a little strange to me, could it perhaps be 11th Field Company, Royal Australian Engineers? Does the source specifically state "11th Royal Australian Engineers?"
- Yes, I thought that was a little unusual too, but that's what the source states. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the name "Garrison" is spelt differently in the Notes (Citation # 4) and References section;
Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Australian Imperial Force section, "the Australian's frontline". This sounds like it was the front line of an individual Australian. Perhaps better worded as "the Australian frontline"?
- Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same section, "Baker was admitted to hospital suffering from an illness". Do we know what illness?
- His service record is a little confusing, and I'm not completely sure what the illness was, but I do know he did develop a fever. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Australian Flying Corps, "concluded that 37 German aeroplanes alone". I'm not sure what is trying to be said here.
- I think I wrote that, and I don't know what I was trying to say, except perhaps implying that there was damage to other things as well - removed "alone" for simplicity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that was your tweaked version of my dodgy version, Ian! Lol. Thanks for fixing that. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I wrote that, and I don't know what I was trying to say, except perhaps implying that there was damage to other things as well - removed "alone" for simplicity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very nice article. I would like to see the above comments resolved, but I am still entering my support as I believe this article to currently be of A-class. Dana boomer (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Dana. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 23 December 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.