Talk:Morotai Mutiny

Congratulations
This is an excellent article. I've often heard of this incident but this is the first consise account I've been able to find. --Nick Dowling 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers, mate. Well, it was a fascinating cast of characters. Caldwell's the popular hero who always gets a mention, and rightly so, but Arthur (also a nominal Group Captain, at the ripe old age of 24) laid the groundwork, so hopefully we've got a decent balance there. Ian Rose 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done Ian. It's almost up to Featured Article standard. Grant | Talk 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A photo would help, though I'm not sure of what. Cranky looking or bored fighter pilots perhaps? --Nick Dowling 10:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just found and added what I think is a suitable photo. AWM OG3381 is similar, but the body language seems more hostile in AWM OG3380. --Nick Dowling 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice one, Nick, took the words right out out of my mouth - a photo was exactly what it needed next. Hadn't seen that one before, looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, very good choice. I have just used MS Picture Manager to crop the black edges off and turn the "saturation" down, as Harry and Clive were looking a bit green. The AWM don't always go to much trouble when they scan their pics. Still a great resource though.Grant | Talk 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AWM also has a pic from 1945 (VIC1638) that I first saw in a book and considered using in addition to the Cobby/Caldwell one we already have, namely Jones and Kenney looking surprisingly cordial - though the fact that it appears to have been taken in Manila, not Morotai, might make it a somewhat less perfect fit. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose 16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good. I was tempted to add a photo from the AWM database which shows a memorial service held at Morotai in October 1945 for two Spitfire pilots killed during ground attack missions (P02482.007 or P02482.006 ). There are also lots of photos of Caldwell surrounded by adoring pilots which tends to suggest where the senior pilots gained the confidence to 'mutiny'. --Nick Dowling 08:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also OG2425 from 11/4/45, nine days before the mutiny, which shows Cobby pinning a U.S. Silver Star on a pilot as Gibson looks on. They all look hot and bothered. Grant | Talk 10:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.


 * Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


 * If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


 * Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chronology
There seems to be a slight discrepancy between this and the Caldwell article. In this article we are told that charges had already been laid against Caldwell prior to the "mutiny", the article on Caldwell himself only mentions the charges after the events at Morotai. I don't have the sources to striaghten this out. David Underdown (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the sources here, Caldwell was under charge by Cobby for alcohol trafficking before the "mutiny". The investigation and the court martial, however, took place afterwards. So the statement in the Caldwell article that "In the last months of the war Caldwell was implicated in an investigation into an alcohol racket in Morotai..." is strictly not incorrect - but could be reworded. Something along these lines, possibly:


 * Prior to the "mutiny", Caldwell had been charged over his involvement in an alcohol racket on Morotai, where liquor was flown in by RAAF aircraft and then sold to the sizable U.S. forces contingent in the locality. He was court martialled in January 1946 and reduced to the rank of Flight Lieutenant.


 * WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That should work, the present wording int he Caldwell article makes it seem (even more so) that the court-martial was a way at getting back at him for involvement in the "mutiny". David Underdown (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool - I'll update/cite in the Caldwell article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article=Passed
Congratulations. The only criticism I have on this article is that it could use to be expanded, and it could be more thouroghly referenced. Cheers, Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line §  14:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article?
Ian, are you interested in taking this article to FA standard? I think that a copy-edit from an editor with a fresh pair of eyes is all that would be required to get it there... Nick Dowling (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence there, Nick. I've been concentrating just recently on putting a little more meat onto Richard Williams to nominate that for FA but I guess I've always thought this one was of the right standard for it at some stage. My only concern used be to that, even though we all say length isn't that important for FA, this one might still be considered a bit light in that department. However 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt and 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing, to name two, are no bigger and they've had the nod. There is a limit to how much you can put into something like this without overdoing it.  Yes, why not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've requested a copy-edit at WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests Nick Dowling (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys mind if I take a look? -- AnnaFrance  (talk)  12:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, Anna - happy to have another editor scan it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Another copyedit
I've gone over the article and made a few edits here and there. There really wasn't much to do, as you have noted. It's a fascinating article and in very good shape. (If there was a hit counter on this page, you'd notice some increased activity in the last day. I've been recommending it to friends.) I ran the semi-automated peer review software on it, which turned up a few things, and I had a couple of content notes I thought I'd pass along:


 * The software said that the lead section should be expanded. I agree that a few extra sentences are in order, and I particularly would like to see some information about Morotai&mdash;just some overhead info to get the reader oriented (it's an island in Indonesia, there is/was a military base there, etc.). And since the lead section is purely summary (no unique data), I suppose this would also need to go in the Background section.
 * I'll have a think about this.
 * See 10 August 2008 response to Nick below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the only point that I have a personal opinion about. The following I pass along purely for your consideration:
 * According to WP:QUOTE, "quoteboxes should generally be avoided" and "there is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics".
 * Hmm, I happen to think they look snazzy and I have taken an article to FA which had one or two, so perhaps that convention is more honoured in the breach... Might leave that till an FA review and see what people say.
 * Found in MOS:IMAGES, "Images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text."
 * Yep, I know that one and happen to agree with it but I think the convention is also to have introductory picture to the right. Either side suits me - again, might leave that to FA.
 * The peer review software said to "consider adding more links". Hmm. Looks fine to me, but there are relatively few backlinks. I noticed in particular that there are no backlinks from: Royal Australian Air Force, No. 9 Operational Group RAAF, and John Vincent Barry. Maybe somebody could edit one into these articles?
 * Oddly enough, I probably refrained from adding in links to those articles in case it looked like I was giving this one undue weight - but I will review those again (I think the 9OG one is the least tenable, Ranger is the only real connection, from memory).
 * Reviewing all those potential backlinks mentioned, I don't think it's really necessary in Royal Australian Air Force or 9OG but would certainly merit a mention/link in History of the Royal Australian Air Force when that article is expanded (on my longlist!) and also in the Barry article (I'm presently doing a minor reorg/copyedit and will work it in). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The software also said that, according to WP:HEAD, "headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)')." Obviously referring to The "mutiny". I found this suggestion in the MoS section on article titles, but not in the header section.
 * Yep, I think it would be odd not to use the definite article in this case.
 * The software also mentioned redundancies and vague terms. I have tried to fix what I've been able to find.
 * Think you did a good job.
 * In the Prelude section there is a quote that includes the word "Public", capitalized, in mid-sentence. Is this accurate?
 * Yes, it was capitalised in the source.

I hope this helps. -- AnnaFrance  (talk)  17:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for that work, Anna - it looks even better to me since you've been over it. My one query is under the Aftermath section re. "The incident did not improve the RAAF's role ... It did improve the situation on Morotai ..." You altered "change the RAAF's role" to "improve the RAAF's role"; I think I had "change" to avoid repeating "improve" in the next sentence and also because "improving" a unit's role in wartime is a bit of a matter of opinion. I'd therefore suggest that "change" (or "alter") might be best for the first sentence - your thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks also Anna. I agree that 'change' would be better than 'improve' as it's clearer. That said, 1 TAF's role expanded significantly from May as it supported the Australian-led Borneo Campaign (1945) and some souces state that this offensive improved morale - this should probably be worked into the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed back to "change" but haven't modified anything else for now. Nick, re. Borneo, this may be correct but the thrust of the sentence is that the "mutiny" per se wasn't the catalyst for any change of role (unless the sources you mention happen to imply that). It might well be apposite for the 1TAF article though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the article states that Scherger improved the situation on Morotai via boosting morale, it seems worth noting that morale also increased at the same time as 1TAF shifted onto more active, and purposeful, operations (even though much of its groundcrew and the forward HQ ended up stuck on Tarakan waiting for the airfield to be repaired!). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick, tks for taking the time to reword that last addition with Morshead; reads really well now without inferring more from the source than was present. No prob if you'd like to work in a sentence on that expansion of 1TAF's role. Following the copyedit I'm about ready to submit this FAC but I've been considering expanding the intro a bit per Anna's suggestion; think it already summarises the article pretty neatly but there was a quote from Odgers I've always been keen to work in somewhere and maybe the intro is the spot - could you take a look at this draft (includes citation) and tell me what you think, or if you have other suggestions for beefing it up a bit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't actually re-find the source for the Borneo Campaign lifting 1TAF's morale! I think that the article is FAC-worthy, though I have two further suggestions 1) I think that we should find more specific references for some of the material which is currently cited to large chunks of Odgers - while some of these wide page ranges are justified, others should probably be changed to specific page numbers and 2) The bit which reads "Jones resolved to dismiss not only Cobby but also his staff officers, Group Captains Gibson and Simms, and Scherger took over as Air Officer Commanding 1TAF in May" should probably be expanded to a full para which contains the date Jones made this decision (which, anoyingly, isn't in Odgers, and when Scherger took over (somewhere between 5 May and 10 May [when Cobby left 1TAF HQ at Tarakan and Scherger arrived]). What do you think? Nick Dowling (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I really like that introduction. It's very fair to all concerned and makes good use of the official history. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick, have incorporated that now (BTW, just an aside, the more I see that shot of Cobby and Caldwell you discovered, the more convinced I am that it was a great addition to the article). I hear what you say about the page ranges; I guess part of my reticence to narrow them is that it throws into even sharper relief that Alexander's "Augean Stables" essay has no page numbers at all and I've cited it to the hilt...! What I might do is review the Odgers ones and narrow the direct quotes to the exact page or pages. As for Jones' decision, I'll check Helson for a date, as well as Alexander. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Improve" seems clearer to me than "change" because every time I read that section it's a doublethink to remember that "no change" was not, as it sounds, a neutral result. (Another person who read the article also mentioned it to me, entirely unprompted.) But I take your point about the repetition and agree that avoiding that is definitely more important. -- AnnaFrance  (talk)  13:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Augean stables
It's a simple typo that 'augean' (after Augeas the king) was not capitalised in refs here, despite the fact the same typo appears in the heading of a source website. So I've capitalised its initial throughout. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox suggestion
I've suggested it before, but I think the article would look good with an infobox. Here's what it would look like. I used this photo because I think current photo at the top of the article would look better where the Spitfire photo currently is. The reason is that Cobby and Caldwell are looking to the right. It looks better if they are looking into the article text, because the reader's eyes are drawn to the direction that they are looking towards. Just a suggestion. Also, I'll help out with the copyedit suggested by one of the FAC reviewers. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. I do think that the rule about eyes looking 'into' the article can be too rigidly applied. The body language in the Cobby-Caldwell pic appears so telling I don't think this 'rule' is so important here. Then again, as I said in response to AnneFrance earlier, I'd have no issue with the Cobby-Caldwell pic on the left-hand side of the intro (which would presumably mean not bothering with an infobox - I'm not particularly against an infobox but FAs don't actually require them, e.g. 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing). What do others think? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No heartburn from me either way. It's up to you.  I'll go ahead and work on the copyedit although I'm not sure if I'll find anything that needs editing, but at least I'll be able to tell Tony that a non-involved, non-Australian looked at the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that CE offer – it's appreciated. BTW, don't get me wrong, the infobox as you have it there is actually growing on me – just interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts on it (with whichever picture). Cheers again, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi fellas, I just saw this here and thought I would put in my two cents. Personally, I think the article looks great how it is; however, I do like the suggested infobox and photo above even more. I personally like infoboxes for some reason, but, as Ian has stated, the right infobox is needed, and I think this one is it. This one looks good and does not take up much space, but I think the best thing about it is the photograph; this pic shows Caldwell surrounded by a group of fellow airmen with their complete attention on him, demonstrating the influence this man actually had. To me, this reinforces what is stated in the article about these senior officers’ status among their fellow airmen. However, these are my opinions and I'm happy for youse to decide on what is introduced and changed with in this great article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I generally like infoboxes, but am not sure what one would add to the article in this instance as all that information is in the first (short) paras. I also prefer the existing lead photo as the alternative is a propaganda photo while the current photo illustrates the tensions between the two men and I find it more arresting. I'm not going to die in a ditch on either issue though! Nick Dowling (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick, just an aside re. Odgers in the first para in case you were wondering, I used the qualifier "in the Pacific War" to imply that Odgers was responsible for that part of the official history, not all of it - but no prob with your rephrasing to make it still clearer...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeez! Compelling argument, Nick! You’re probably right though; the box is likely to add little to the article, and, although I like this picture, I realise your right that it is a more of a propaganda photo. But, which ever way is best for the article suits me. Thanks for listening to an outsider's opinion, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit
According to this grammar guide and others that I've seen, if someone's job title is used after their name, it's not supposed to be capitalized. The problem is that most people will still think that it's wrong, in my experience. For example from this article: "Wing Commander Kenneth Ranger, senior staff officer (plans)"  That's how it's supposed to be written, but it doesn't look right not to capitalize the whole thing. I'm open to suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think I'm finished with the copyedit and I'll go make a note of it in the FAC. Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate - appreciate your time. Re. the job title, I think the solution to the capitalisation issue (and, now I look at it, the repetition) is to word it as "First, he spoke to Wing Commander Kenneth Ranger, a senior staff officer who had served with No. 9 Operational Group RAAF and had made a number of allegations against its commander, Air Commodore Joe Hewitt, who was eventually dismissed from his post." This generalises the job a bit; I don't think it's that vital that we know he was in planning...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Section heading
Does it have to say ==="Mutiny"=== in quotes or can it just be ===Mutiny===. Reason being, the special character here breaks W3C HTML design guidelines. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have employed them but the term is generally used in quotes in connection with this incident. I might even have used them in the name of the article itself except I gathered that was a definite no-no at the time.  It's a little like David Bowie's "Heroes" (which interestingly now has quotes around the article title but didn't always) - the term is usually considered somewhat ironic. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The point
I think much more needs to be made of the point of the "mutiny". I really had to search the article for it, and my conclusion is that their protest was that their missions were insufficiently important. It's pretty buried, currently. Tempshill (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm very close to this, but their point is mentioned up front in the lead, and developed from the last para of the Background section through the Prelude section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent with Tempshill. The background section pointedly criticizes MacArthur (and through him his agent, Kenney) by inference, and then never revisits that issue. Did the RAAF have more strategically important missions? Was that issue ever resolved? Were the "mutineers" satisfied to have three brass hats sacked and let it go at that? If so, that gives an appearance of petulance, like the so-called Arnheiter Mutiny in the US Navy during the Vietnam War, no matter how high their motives. It's an excellent article, but with some unanswered questions raised. As someone posted elsewhere on the discussion page, we're just looking at it with fresher eyes, not criticizing.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article must better clarify the implications of their resignation - would they be sent to clear the minefields in strafbattalions or simply stripped of their ranks or what? What happened to other court-martialled Australians? NVO (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources really goes into the implications of them actually having carried out their resignations (as the article points out, all but one remained on operations till the end of the war in any case). Re. court-martials, as stated, that happened to two of them (though not for charges directly related to the "mutiny"), resulting in reduction in the ranks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the 'mutineers' were informed that they weren't allowed to resign during wartime and they either eventually returned to duty or were posted to other duties (Caldwell was overdue for replacement under an agreement he'd made with the RAAF high command when he took up command of No. 80 Wing, for example, and left Morotai for Australia shortly after the 'mutiny' accompanied by Bobby Gibbes). It's worth noting that the 'mutiny' didn't have any clear or satisfactory outcomes - its ultimate result was the replacement of a competent officer with a more competent and charismatic officer any no real change in mission for 1 TAF beyond supporting the Borneo operation, which they were going to do anyway. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morotai Mutiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014171352/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67913 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67913

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Morotai Mutiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418104953/https://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/26.pdf to http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/26.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418104953/https://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/26.pdf to http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/26.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418104953/https://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/26.pdf to http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/26.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418104953/https://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/26.pdf to http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/26.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

URFA/2020 check
IAW WP:URFA/2020 I checked this older FA, did a very light c/e, and found it in entirely satisfactory condition for a FA.