Talk:William Bostock/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Well-written
 * 'His achievements in the role earned him the Distinguished Service Order and the American Medal of Freedom, General Douglas MacArthur describing him as "one of the world's most successful airmen' - that's noun-plusing, I think. Perhaps a full-stop after Freedom, and then changed 'describing' to 'described'
 * Okay
 * Yep, that's fine
 * 'He was educated at The School in Mount Victoria' - Is 'The School' the actual name of the school, or is that a typo?
 * That's the name
 * Heh, weird, you learn something new every day.
 * 'He landed at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915, serving there until August, when he was evacuated suffering from dysentery' - noun-plusing, perhaps 'where he was evacuated because he suffered from dysentry'
 * Well, I think it reads okay as is - "he suffered from dysentry" makes it sound like a chronic condition, like flat feet, whereas "suffering" implies a more temporary sickness, as this was
 * Yeah, can't disagree there, I probably don't have this noun-plusing thing right anyway, don't quite understand it.
 * 'Promoted to sergeant, Bostock was posted to Egypt with the ANZAC Mounted Division in April 1916, seeing action against Turkish forces in the Sinai Peninsula' - 'and saw action'
 * Okay
 * Fine
 * 'Kenney threatened to escalate the matter to the Australian Government' - lower-case 'government'?
 * Reckon it's arguable either way but no prob changing to lower case
 * Fine
 * 'Bostock later said that he would have thankfully "fallen through a crack in the boards on the deck" as he watched the Allied formations from a U.S. warship, minus the expected Australian aircraft' - Nice quote, but I'm not sure what it signifies; perhaps some more context would help, ie why he felt like that (preumably because the australian aircraft weren't with the americans, just clarify that)
 * Okay, might be a tad esoteric as is
 * Eh, looks okay to me
 * 'Bostock went into journalism after his retirement from the military, becoming an aviation correspondent for The Herald' - 'became'
 * Just "became" wouldn't be good English; could make it "and became"
 * Heh, whoops: that's actually what I meant to write anyway, "and became" is good.


 * Factually Accurate
 * 'Their feud was blamed for contributing to the low morale that precipitated the so-called "Morotai Mutiny" of April 1945, when a group of senior pilots in the First Tactical Air Force submitted their resignations rather than continue to attack what they believed to be worthless targets' - citation please
 * It's #41, same as following sentences, but I can repeat it if you think that's too much for one instance of it
 * Yeah, might not be a bad idea, especially if you're going to FA
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'He wrote a series of articles criticising the Air Force's organisation and presenting his side of the story of RAAF Command, motivated partly by his belief—unjustified in the event—that the official history of Australia in World War II would fail to adequately cover it' - Seems a tad peacock, rewrite and citation please
 * Have to admit I don't see the peacock part and I think it reads quite effectively, so could you be more specific?
 * To be honest, it's the 'unjustified in the event' that makes it sound like the article is criticizing him. Can it be removed? I don't think the sentence would suffer without it.
 * Well, it may look like opinion but if so it's the cited author's opinion, and not mine intruding into the article... I think "unjustified in the event" is fairly mild compared to how the author puts it: his wording is that Bostock "claimed quite incorrectly" that it wouldn't be covered, and that such a claim "does a great disservice" to the official historians. I've taken it out for now but to be honest I wouldn't mind it taking its chance in FAC and see how others feel as well.  However, I'll respect your view if you really think it needs to stay out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Broad in its coverage
 * Passes


 * Neutral
 * Passes, as long as the second factually accurate comment is fixed


 * Stable
 * Passes


 * Images
 * Passes

A great article, and with some prose and factual issues changed, this will be passed as a GA in no time! Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks for reviewing. Modified a few things per suggestions; await your response to queries above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to pop off to bed now, work in the morning; can you buzz me on my talkpage so I don't forget? Thanks for the response, btw, it all looks good from here, I'll respond in more detail tomorrow. Skinny87 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the wake-up call, I'm doing this at breakfast! Get those last few little things done and I'll pass this! Skinny87 (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I'll pass this now; as to taking out that wording - thanks. By all means pop it back in if you go for FA and see how it goes! Skinny87 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)