User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2012

Albert Ball for 2012?
Hello, cobber,

I hope that 2012 will be your best year yet. I also hope it will be the year of Albert Ball.

Now that the holidays are past, I hope that you will be able to consider my reply to your expressed concerns about Albert Ball. I do believe I have made a cogent case for molding the article into a form that will help it approach the standard of Roderic Dallas. The difference in the two articles lies in the fact that because I was the prime contributor to the text for Stan Dallas, I shaped it as I went. Because others contributed to the Ball article, I am shaping it after the fact. In the latter case, I seem to have inadvertently stepped on some toes, including yours.

One of my end goals was to take the burden of textual editing from you, as I know you have many other responsibilities to the Wikipedia community. Another was to be the first responder to reviewers during the FA Review, and to refer to my co-noms only if I had to. Perhaps I should have apprized you of the latter, but I suffer from innate modesty.

I hope that you will have the confidence in me to countenance my completion of editing the Ball article. Then, if the end product is not perceptibly improved, you can always revert it, piecemeal or in toto.

Again, best wishes for your new year.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ian,

Now that I live in a town with a bookstore.... I have placed an order for Pengally's book, with an eye toward wrapping up Albert Ball. In the absence of objections, I intend to complete my text editing task.

Best regards,

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi mate, apologies for not replying sooner, I seem to have done a lot of running around lately on other articles, and coord tasks, and so on. Let me reiterate I don't have a prob with a number of those recent edits but, like SoM, I think in some cases the structure and/or wording worked better before.  When you've been involved in as many FACs as I have you tend to develop a very practical (some might say pragmatic) attitude towards mucking around with something that's already had approval by peers at GA and A-Class level.  If you're prepared to get hold of Pengally's book, that's great, but even then I don't think it means we radically alter anything in the article unless Pengally seriously disagrees with things we've already got (and he'd have to really back up such disagreements against Bowyer and co) or unless Pengally has a particularly interesting nugget of info to add that we've missed. Ball is already a longer article than most I've worked on and we have to decide what to leave out as well as what to put in. My chief interest in Pengally is to make sure we (are seen to) cover all bases as far as recent scholarship goes, not because I feel the article lacks good solid reliable info. Before Pengally comes into the picture I'd like to revisit the article as it now stands and finally agree a structure we can all live with, then you can just graft any necessary changes/deletions/additions from Pengally onto it. Hopefully I'll get time to do that in Feb, and the other collaborators can be perusuaded to contribute to that final agreement too, so we have something bullet-proof to submit to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you, Ian.

When I paused in the middle of my editorial process a month ago, I composed a rather complete exegesis of my effort to that point. I hoped it would enlighten you as to the thrust of my editing efforts, which consisted almost completely of rearranging previously written material into chronological order. I find it bothersome that you do not seem to have read and considered my explanations.

I believed–and still do believe–that instilling a chronological flow to the article will lend it both clarity and focus. As you remark, that is an unpragmatic approach for assessment purposes. Perhaps so, but I have volunteered to take the brunt of the additional slagging and questioning that may occur when the FAC process begins.

At any rate, there is a nearly-complete revamping sitting waiting to be completed. Like a house in mid-renovation, its final form is only visible to the renovator. I want to finish the revamping so the final form is visible. It will be a much improved article when done; yet, there will be no real changes of content from the Good Article review.

You say the article verges on the long side, and you are correct. However, it is still substantially the same length as before I began my rearrrangement–70,953 bytes now versus 69,959 previously. That suggests it may indeed need paring. However, a bit of trim and polish is always the final step, in my experience.

I will not alter the article by including information from Pengally willynilly. I only ordered the book because you believe it's necessary for completeness sake. If there is anything startling and new, it would be considered after I complete the rearrangement. However, it is useless to speculate on possible changes resulting from a book that will not arrive for a couple of weeks. That is a separate, future worry, and has no bearing on what I have been doing.

In short, let me finish Being Bold before you judge the result, okay?

Georgejdorner (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * George, I did read your response to my concerns (and SoM's) and probably should have replied then but as I said in my initial response, it was a very busy time of year. All I can say is that I stand by my comments that some of the things that have been noved around just looked better to me where they were, as chronology isn't everything -- it's not simply a matter of not fixing what ain't broke for the sake of FAC... ;-) Anyway, if you've got more to do, feel free, let us all know when done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Pengelly received; perusal in progress.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jaws
Given you reviewed the Jaws GAN 2 years ago, can you comment on this? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that -- I'll put the FAC on my list for review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Harry Lee (cricketer)
I just wondered, given your obvious expertise in the military history area, whether you'd be able to have a look at this article, particularly the section on the war service, and provide me with your thoughts? Regards,  Harrias  talk 13:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!
Oh. Indubitably! (Strangely, only that play, and some of the sonnets, remain from my so-called "education".) Ho hum. P.S. Happy New Year! (I'm enjoying being "semi-retired".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SMS
- Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

 * Tks Buggie! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Post closure review (WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Harry_Lee_(cricketer))
I thought rather than close I'd actually do a review for a change, but unfortunately we edit conflicted. Great timing eh? I've posted it anyway (IAR!) EyeSerene talk 11:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, it happens... I promoted an article once just as Dank wanted to add some comments but it was a few days after it had been posted to ACRs for Closure as well. With Dank's agreement I completed the promotion and he posted his comments to the article talk page. Methinks best if you did the same to ensure they don't get forgotten, and to keep the closed review page neat 'n' tidy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
 * I did consider that but my comments are minimal and make no difference to the review's outcome so I thought they might as well stay with the rest of it. However I'm assuming the nominator will check back; maybe your solution is better. EyeSerene talk 11:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hector Waller
Hello Ian, congratulations on the promotion of Hector Waller to Featured Article status. On a different note, the thought had been lurking in the back of my mind that we'd communicated at some point (before recently), yet I couldn't recall us actually doing so. Yesterday, the thought came back to me that you were initially going to review Billy Sing for Good Article status, if I'm not mistaken, before Hawkeye7 kindly picked it up. Mystery solved! Janggeom (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re. Waller, thanks, and thanks for getting it off to such a good start. Re. Sing, yes I remember now, I knew you'd improved that article when we communicated over Waller (I took the liberty of checking other contribs you'd made when I saw your name in Waller's history) but I'd clean forgotten that I tagged Sing to review for GA at one stage -- not sure if I had to go away or something, and that was why Hawkeye had to pick it up, but all's well that ends well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

 * Thank you very much, Laura -- best to you too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Military historian of the Year (Silver)
Very well done, Ian,  Roger Davies  talk 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, mate, and it could just have easily been you with the Golden Wiki this year. You've done a lot of great content work and your continued involvement as a co-ord for the project has been vital in keeping it running. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rupert, much appreciated, but really the golden wiki couldn't have gone to a more deserved recipient than yourself! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats Ian, this went to a well-deserving editor. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well Ian. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick and Ed, well done yourselves! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn Aussies! ;) Still, hard to begrudge three excellent editors, and this was certainly well deserved for all the effort you put into those many, many articles. Congrats Ian! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks man, appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congra... ah, you know how it goes

 * Heh, thanks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you relist this A-class nom?
I don't find it fair it was failed because nobody cares about the subject: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski. On AFD and other discussions, a common procedure is to relist to generate more discussion, instead of closing. I think milhist should do the same. It's not fair to the nominator (me) to say: "we didn't care, but try again, maybe we will this time." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand you feeling that way, as a coord I also much prefer to see ACRs end in promotion, or to at least generate more comment. Possibly having a number of Polish history articles listed simultaneously had something to do with it. Generally I've found that listing in the ACRs for Closure section generates more comment, which encourages us to keep them open longer. In this case that didn't happen. My suggestion is to wait until these other noms of yours run their natural course and then relist this one. In the meantime I'd also suggest, looking at the one comment that the nom did generate, that it might be worth putting in a few citations from the other source you mentioned, even if older than your main one, to broaden the referencing a little. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Email
I've sent you one. Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is ... intriguing. I don't want to speculate, but if I'm guessing right, a congratulations will be in order. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bond novels
Hi Ian, As you reviewed a number of the individual articles, I thought you might like to know I'm going for a Good Topic at the moment. If you've got a free moment—and feel so inclined—I'd be delighted if you'd comment here. No probs if you're stretched on other things tho! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob -- done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a star - many thanks indeed! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Congratulations. Agreed with Raul that you've got the skills and you're trustworthy. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and may you promote many FAs. I've started a page at User:Ucucha/FAC coordination for you, Graham, and me to coordinate our FAC work. Ucucha (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, and congratulations - see you on our coordination page :-) Best wishes . Graham Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, appreciate the thoughts! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well - it's well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You will seriously need more than one beer before you are done, to say nothing of many days. But welcome.  Don't hesitate to ask.  But also, don't be offended by the occasional no.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Wehwalt, see you round the traps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A just reward for my sins, eh? Seriously, tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Ian. I hope that you'll still have time to help out with MilHist ACR reviews, but understand totally if you don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, tks Storm. If I have time to edit and submit articles to ACR, as I still hope to, I'll certainly be making time to review as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Ian, it is very well deserved. I wish you luck. :P Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate -- I hope I don't need it, but it can't hurt...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I told Graham, please do update WP:GO if you promote. I'm not convinced anyone actually uses that page, but as long as it's there we might as well maintain it. (I was going to promote Hepburn, only to find that you had already done so—we're cooperating well :) .) Ucucha (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob, I was actually doing a similar thing for the Milhist newsletter (wearing my project coordinator hat!) after I saw you promote the MacArthur article, so tks for the reminder re. GO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed
I've made a few edits for clarity. I like it but it may be a bit too tangential at times -- that's why I created the footnotes section. We don't want to confuse the poor readers. ;-) Also, I added a silly-but-real author profile at the end of it based on your user page. Please double-check it and feel free to remove it. P.S. I may have illegally downloaded a music album on my school's internet and they caught me... I'm going to be mostly offline for the next 48 hours while I'm not allowed to do anything but email and class stuff, then almost completely offline from Monday night-ish to Saturday while I'm in Toronto for MUN. Will you be able to publish this when the op-ed is done? (email me the reply, as I'll be leaving the library now...!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

February Bugle op-ed
Hi Ian, The article looks really good to me. The graphic of the different assessment levels is excellent, and should probably be used more widely. I've got some suggestions through: First of all, did you deliberately exclude stub class? The concept of a 'good stub' might be worth highlighting, as its not necessarily a bad thing to create a really short article as a starting point for others. I'm also not sure whether B class is necessarily similar to GA - in my experience (and assessments) there's a significant difference: an article which is basically OK and provides an adequate overview of its topic but a bit patchy or rough around the edges and only has one reference per paragraph will probably pass a B class assessment, but not a GAN. Your point about recent precedents for FACs being more useful than the guidelines is good practical advice - the same appears to apply to GANs in my experience. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, appreciate those observations. I guess I was being pragmatic re. Stub, since I felt it would crowd the diagram and yet if I mentioned it in the text its absence from the diagram would be more obvious... ;-) Anyway, I mentioned Stub a couple of times early on, and implied its absence from the diagram is due to it scoring no points in the monthly contest, if that helps at all...! That's interesting re. B/GA, I don't actually mind if an entire para in the latter is cited to one source (as long as it's not a huge para), I'm more concerned about the entire article having only one major source -- but then I've generally resisted passing articles for B-Class that are effectively single-source as well, which brings me back to why I see them as similar in terms of referencing. Anyway, I've reworded a bit to avoid suggesting there's no difference between the two referencing-wise, hope you feel it's an improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks really good. Only a couple of comments: the second (?) sentence "Even project-oriented grades like B- and A-Class sit among Wikipedia-wide assessments like GA and FA can be confusing" seems like it has a word or two missing; and should the diagram have arrows going directly from B -> A and GA -> FA as well? It's an interesting read and, as so often, I completely agree with your approach and advice. Great minds and all that... :) EyeSerene talk 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cor, there is something odd there -- will see, tks. Re. the diagram, actually I probably have a version with those extra arrows as well, but in theory since one could go every which way forward through the steps I dropped them in favour of the 'nominal' class-by-slass route. The coloured 'stream' backgrounds at least show that A is the next step purely in MilHist terms after B, and FA comes after GA in WP-wide grades. Plus I have the disclaimer in text just before the diagram that this is not the only route through the classes... Whew, rationalisation complete! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason I suggested the extra arrows is that an article can hold both GA and A-Class at the same time (and technically B-, C-, Stub- and even Start-Class class too, though realistically I'd expect B-Class to be a minimum for an article that's passed GAN). I thought that might be your answer though, and of course I had read the disclaimer in the essay. It's hard to disagree with you because I think what you've set out has become a de facto pecking order, even though the actual relationships are more complicated. One curiosity I hadn't realised before discussing the assessment schemes with other editors at GAN some years ago is that WikiProject GA-Class is actually different to GAN-awarded GA status, and it's only by convention that we accept the award of our GA-Class based on the outcome of a Good Article review. In theory we could make up our own GA-Class assessments and run them in parallel with GA project assessments... not that I'd advocate that for one moment as it would be a recipe for confusion and chaos (not to mention we'd need a new template category). Anyhow, I can see what you're doing with the scheme and think the essay is spot on. EyeSerene talk 08:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a weird one, isn't it? I actually thought people were off their heads when I first heard it -- why complicate things more?  Anyway, many tks for your comments, mate. Am about to dispatch the issue via EdwardsBot -- first time for me, so here goes nothing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's arrived, so something worked :) EyeSerene talk 10:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for John Balmer

 * Sorry about the initial credit. Your have been properly credited at WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's cool, thanks very much mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pappy Herbst GAN
Ian, I am a WikiCup competitor. To assist in my moving forward in the competition, I wish to draw out the GA review for Pappy Herbst through to March so that the resulting points, if the article is GA listed, will be assigned to Round 2. I am already well established with points in Round 1; more points will not help me until March 1, Round 2.

That said, if it is in any way inconvenient for you to take your time with the review, I will be fully cooperative in moving ahead with it. I will not drag my feet to game the system. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you picked just the right guy for such a request -- I'm afraid I tend to take a while over my GA reviews (or indeed any review) so it's highly unlikely I would have completed it before the beginning of March anyway. As it is, I will of course aim to complete it before the beginning of April, not for the Cup particularly but because dragging it out any longer wouldn't be fair under any circumstances...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2
I'm putting this on your talk since you were the last delegate to comment here, but I'm pinging Ucucha since he dealt with similar issues on highway FACs. Would you mind taking a look at this? The discussion has degenerated into incivility as well as discussing what the FA criteria are and are not. --Rschen7754 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No resolution yet, eh? I'll be along presently. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: John McCauley
This is a note to let the main editors of John McCauley know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 27, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 27, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



John McCauley (1899 – 1989) was a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force. He served as Chief of the Air Staff from 1954 to 1957. A Duntroon graduate, McCauley spent four years in the Australian Military Forces before transferring to the RAAF in 1924. Having been promoted to group captain in 1940, he was posted to Singapore in June 1941 to take charge of all RAAF units defending the area. He earned praise for his efforts in attacking invading Japanese forces before the fall of Singapore, and for his dedication in evacuating his men. He was appointed to a senior operational role with the Royal Air Force's 2nd Tactical Air Force in Europe, where he saw out the rest of the war. In 1947 he was promoted to air vice marshal and appointed Chief of Staff at British Commonwealth Occupation Force Headquarters in Japan. He took up the position of Chief of the Air Staff in January 1954, and was knighted a year later. During his tenure in the RAAF's senior role, McCauley focused on potential deployments to Southeast Asia&mdash;particularly Vietnam&mdash;and threats from the north, commencing redevelopment of RAAF Base Darwin and recommending purchase of a light supersonic bomber to replace the Air Force's English Electric Canberra. After retiring from military life in March 1957, he chaired various community and welfare organisations. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work Ian. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks mate -- I didn't even nominate this one, it just came up with the rations! Bit more vandalism than I expected for someone relatively unknown to the general public, but it's all page views I guess... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aussie history is overrepresented on the main page... sheesh. ;-) Keep up the excellent job, sir. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks -- hmm, yes, an investiigation into the relative TFA representation of Australian milhist vs. battleships might be instructive... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello chap. Thanks for your comments on my talk page.  I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization on how far to go in including succession boxes.  I would welcome your comments there.  Well done on McCauley b.t.w. Greenshed (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Pengelly and Ball
Allo, cobber,

Albert Ball definitely needs input from Pengelly's book. Pengelly has advanced knowledge about Ball's life to such a degree that I feel the article needs further additions and revisions. I can point out three major areas of concern about the present article:

1) There is no mention of Thelma Starr, although she and Ball were romantically involved for over a year.

2) Ball's role in the Austin-Ball A.F.B.1 is explored in depth.

3) Pengelly has unravelled the series of events that led to Ball's death. Of especial interest is his portrayal of how the Germans mistakenly credited Lothar von Richthofen with a victory over Ball; it boils down to honest error rather than a propaganda ploy.

Additionally, there is a wealth of detail in the book concerning many of the vaguer portions of the present article. Pengelly is a very concise writer, and he has built upon and surpassed Ball's previous biographers.

Having stated my opinion on the matter, I wish to elicit your view when we should put Ball up for a Feature Article Review. After all, you do this on a regular basis, and I do not.

I can think of two alternatives–either go for FA now, and make the Pengelly revisions later, or revise first, then go for FA status. What say you?

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good on you for investing in that, George. Heh, given my pragmatism when it comes to reviews sometimes, I don't blame you for asking whether I think we should use Pengelly before or after FA! However if Pengelly really does move the goalposts re. some elements of Ball's life then I think at least those vital things need to be added before such a review. One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness of the information, based on use of the major sources.  I think Pengelly must count as a major source given it's a new full-length biography, so we'd better (be seen to) employ it.  As usual, I advise caution and "less is more" because while he's recent and offers interesting takes on things, that doesn't mean he's right and Bowyer is wrong, after all I think Bowyer has the longer pedigree as an historian. However if Pengelly seems to be using reliable documentation and writing in a reasoned -- rather than a sensational -- manner, then we should at least say "Bowyer reckons this, but Pengelly claims that" where they violently disagree (if in fact they do). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pengelly built upon Bowyer's work; there are no major points of disagreement. Without both bibliographies at hand for comparison, it is difficult to say, but I get the impression that Pengelly had more sources available to him. Certainly, he winkled out more details, and used them to buttress his findings. Pengelly has had the opportunity to be a more thorough historian than Bowyer, and he has used it well.

So far as "Less is more" is concerned, I realize that the article will be even more in need of compression and trimming after this rewrite.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange
Hi Ian Rose, is there any way I can still put in a "strong oppose" to this FAC to stop its promotion? I know it's bad to complain after the fact but this article has such opinionated terrible language. I overlooked the nomination but I saw you expressed some concerns and I wish you or anyone would have stuck to your critique. So, any chance? Hekerui (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Hekerui. My points re. language were actioned, as were Brianboulton's, so I don't think there's a question of us 'sticking to our critique'. The clear consensus was for promotion, so if you have further concerns I'd suggest raising them on the article's talk page. The main editor was perfectly accommodating when I made recommendations re. prose, and I didn't see him giving Brian an argument either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy
Hi Ian, Thanks for the comment on this article. If you do have time, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the article. In particular, I'm not sure if it's got the 'legs' to make it to FA class: an obvious problem is that I can't find much about what the 500 sailors did, though I can go into heaps more detail on the RAAF side of things. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, will look in more detail when I can, though since I've effectively committed to promote it to A-Class I might just leave any further comments on the talk page at a later date. I get you re. the Navy side of things, and obviously all the blokes I named are Air Force. Are there any sources you're aware of that might include more on those sailors, but you can't get hold of them? No doubt you've trawled the NLA catalogue, one of us could do the same with the NSW/Mitchell catalogue just in case and I can check any likely ones in person... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I can't think of any naval sources at all! The most recent histories of the RAN don't even mention this. I imagine that it's difficult to research and write anything about the hundreds of sailors dispersed across hundreds of RN warships. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just in case, let me know if you haven't checked any of these, which I can look up in the Mitchell:
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian - I haven't seen a few of those books, and I'll follow up on them. The ADFA Library is open again on weekends from this Saturday, which tends to be good for my editing productivity ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian - I haven't seen a few of those books, and I'll follow up on them. The ADFA Library is open again on weekends from this Saturday, which tends to be good for my editing productivity ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian - I haven't seen a few of those books, and I'll follow up on them. The ADFA Library is open again on weekends from this Saturday, which tends to be good for my editing productivity ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian - I haven't seen a few of those books, and I'll follow up on them. The ADFA Library is open again on weekends from this Saturday, which tends to be good for my editing productivity ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reginald Pinney
Thanks for the comments (and sorry about the delay). All actioned save one, which is going to require a bit of work to get the sourcing straightened out - let me know if you've any other concerns. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 23:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No 76 Wing
G'day, Ian, I've started the GA review for No 76 Wing. It can be found here: Talk:No. 76 Wing RAAF/GA1. There are just a couple of queries that I think need to be discussed, otherwise it looks fine. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

your recent Jaws edit
Thank you for that. Made me laugh out loud. Blake Burba (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti FAC
World War Three seems to have broken out between two reviewers over the inclusion or exclusion of an image. I have no idea what to do about it and should be most grateful for your guidance. I really don't want the debate over the presence or deletion of a nice but inessential image to get in the way of the promotion of this article to FA. Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's on my list, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for refereeing! Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob, all part of the service... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Anzac Day coming up and the Gallipoli article leaves a lot to be desired
Hi Ian, long time since that beer in Alexandria.

I've left a note at the Gallipoli talk page asking whether editors are prepared to help. There are serious referencing and paragraphing problems, on a quick run through. Cheers. Tony  (talk)  11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A long time, yes -- probably time for another round... ;-) Ugh, I'd like to help on the Gallipoli article but am finding little enough time to work on many articles at all right now -- hopefully the notes on the talk page and the Australian notice board will generate some interest... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Official history review
Hi Ian, Thanks for adding that review of Fighting to the Finish - I didn't realise that The Australian placed its book reviews online. I was going to buy the book until I saw that it was over 1,100 pages long... (I like official histories, and the previous two volumes on the Army in Vietnam were excellent, but that length is just ridiculous). Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know they put them online either, I just read the hard-copy edition in the local cafe this morning and found it, so I decided to look for it online... As far as buying or even reading it, well I can't claim to have read fully a single volume from any of the official histories, even though I have a copy of Bean's original that belonged to my father and would love to find the time to devour it completely -- thank christ for indexes and/or searchable PDF files to get what one needs out of them for articles... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Talk about good timing -- guess what article I'd already started improving before I realised that the last two years of his tenure as Chairman COSC weren't covered in the available official Vietnam histories (until now)...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is good timing! I've seen some copies of the book in libraries already, so the ones you use might have a copy. You might also want to check the volume of the official history which covers the politics of the war (Peter Edwards, A Nation at War: Australian Politics, Society and Diplomacy during the Vietnam War 1965-1975) if you haven't already done so. If you're ever in the mood to read a volume from the various official history series, To Long Tan: The Australian Army and the Vietnam War 1950-1966 is my pick (and it's fairly short). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I have just about every volume of the Official History of Australia's Involvement in Southeast Asian Conflicts in my ref list... Actually, A Nation at War is better than even I suspected for Wilton -- I found out there that his son burned his draft deferment notice in front of Parliament House in 1969... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
Hi, I'm a bit confused as to your edit on Featured article candidates/Sri Lanka/archive3, did you close it? If so why? Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two opposes straight after nomination indicated the nom was under-prepared -- in fact if you check the nominator's last comment I think you'd find he was expecting to have to resubmit it at a later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but do you think it would be possible to keep it open for more suggestions and recommendations?--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for late reply, 'twas past my bedtime in this part of the world... ;-) What you're talking about is more in the nature of a Peer Review -- it's not really the way FAC is designed to work. Alternatively, any suggestions can be left on the article talk page (where a bot will put a link to the archived FAC under Article Milestones, so those comments aren't lost either). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, I think we're form the same part of the world. But anyway thanks for that. Take care.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Steamtown, USA
hi, I left a message for you on the template.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

FAC
So, for Ra.One, I can re-nominate the article for FAC on April 24, 2012 (minimum)? As per dates, you have closed the discussion on April 10, but the bot has not updated it yet. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I remember rightly I closed it around midnight on 10/11 April, so let's say 25 April minimum -- assuming you've taken care of all concerns. One other thing to be aware of is that at some stage during the next FAC we'd need one of the reviewers to do a spotcheck of your sources to ensure accuracy of information and avoidance of close paraphrasing. To help keep that smooth, you might take these two weeks or so to check and make sure your statements are completely supported by the information in your sources, but also that you put everything in your own words (unless directly quoting of course). This is not to suggest in any way that this particular article might have issues in that area, simply to highlight that source spotchecks are a part of FAC these days for everyone (not on each FAC necessarily, but every so often) and I'm assuming you haven't had one performed on any of your articles at FAC-level as yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, this is my first FAC actually :P. I believe a spotcheck will be done in FAC2; however, as per your suggestion, yes I'll try to check it up (though the number of references is a bit of a deterrent). Kay, April 25 it is :) Thanks, and cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno FAC -- spotchecks
Hi Ian, any ideas of whom I could ask to do a bit of spotchecking for the above. Several requests have gone out but as yet no takers. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria and Laser brain are two of the best -- but they do an awful lot so it's good to try and find others who'll have a go. Anyone from arts and entertainment project you can think of, who might also have access to some of the printed sources? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I have left a begging note on Laser brain's talk page. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Cole
G'day Ian. In Cole's between the wars phase, you mention that when CO FTS he oversaw the first CAF pilot's course. He was CO from 1926. My man, Aub Koch, undertook his training during 1926. Is it probable that his was the first CAF course? Is there any way of checking in your references? CheersLexysexy (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I was hoping Koch'd be mentioned in The Third Brother, which is where most of the between-the-wars stuff originates, but no such luck. However, while we're on the subject, I know I was a little unsure of the guy's notability in WP terms but while I was browsing in the Mitchell Library the other day I came across some good coverage of him (can't remember where, I'm bound to have written it down someplace) so that kind of allayed those concerns. Where did we get up to with him, did you end up transferring the draft to mainspace? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's been "up" since 10 December. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_KochLexysexy (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Re my question about the first CAF course (above). Any luck?Lexysexy (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, sorry mate, I misread the question as "was Koch definitely on the 1926 CAF course", rather than "was the first CAF course in 1926"... According to p.234 in The Third Brother, "Those selected for the first 'B' flying course reported on 14 December 1925" and began training immediately. On p.238 Clark records graduation day for the first course as 30 March 1926, and the second 'B' course beginning in December 1926. So if Koch undertook training in 1926, it could have been either the first ('1925') or second ('1926') courses, depending on exactly when he trained -- hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Decided to check the newspaper source in the article re. his training for myself and I see it suggests his flying course started in April 1926. Looks a furphy to me, as the 'B' (CAF) course around that time started in December 1925 and graduated in March 1926 (per above), and the 'A' (PAF) courses started in January of each year and finished around December (and when they went to two intakes per year for the 'A' course, the second started around June-July, not April). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to come back to you with the newspaper reference - you beat me to it! As an ex-CGI (specialist knowledge), can I suggest that he must have been on a "Regulars" course then (albeit Short Service Commission, see pp194 & 199 of Coulthard-Clark from which one can draw the inference that both PC and SSC applicants were trained on the same course)? I suspect the April - November reference relates to the flying. He would have done a substantial ground school beforehand, even then (in my day it was 16 weeks before you even went near an aircraft). He definitely sailed for England in November, there are several references to that - Ahha, we have it - middle of p87 mentions the SSC graduates who sailed at the end of 1926. So he did the A course, indeed, one of his coursemates (L C L Murray) is mentioned on that page. BTW, thank you for the tweaks etc to the article, I think it reads quite well now.
 * Okay, this is where some expert personal knowledge (like how long it takes to get into the plane) comes in really handy... ;-) Yep, what you've inferred sounds plausible. I think best just leave the article as is re. training, since it'd take too long to try and cite how we determined what course he was on -- and if he was on the 'A' (regulars) course then there was nothing unusual about it, since that course had been running since 1923. BTW, I think you could go for GA with this article -- it might require a few more style tweaks at that level but shouldn't be anything too bad, as it's well-written/detailed/referenced. The only things I'd suggest now are:
 * Citing his marriage
 * Providing a page number for the Challenging Horizons citation (#15)
 * Italicising the book and magazine names in your citations
 * Expanding a little on the Archbold rescue -- in the lead/infobox you note that as a major reason for his notability but it only gets one sentence in the main body.
 * Let me know if you can use any assistance! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mate, you'll prob hate me for this, but it seems that I've been shot down again - and there's no known logical explanation this time. I've just found the AWM Service Doc for Aub (http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/script/veteran_certificate.asp?VeteranID=1053645), and it says Enlistment Date 26 April 1926. So there is a deeper meaning to all this!! I'll end up doing research if I'm not careful! Thank you for your suggestions, I'm at it now, but will take time. CheersLexysexy (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bloody WW2 Roll...! Yep, sometimes it doesn't pay to search too deeply -- don't think it invalidates what you have at a general level in the article at the moment, though, so I think you could afford to let sleeping dogs lie as far as that goes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've taken your advice, and added a bit more. What do you think?Lexysexy (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me -- got a citation for the offspring, though? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DoneLexysexy (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(od) Cool. I think I'd nominate for Good Article review now -- I'm probably too close to it to do the review myself, but pls call on me if any probs with the nom process or, more importantly, any issues arise needing a second opinion during the review itself. I'll keep the article on my watchlist in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ahalya/archive2: Ahalya
Thanks for your checks. Have replied to your concerns. Will add more pages in the references from the same reference books tomorrow morning IST. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had crosschecked the page numbers and content again. Please check. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the spotchecks and promotion. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Your Wikichevrons

 * Thanks, Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Reg Saunders
G'day, Ian, have you had a chance to take a look at my changes to the article yet? What do you think? Apologies for the long list of edits. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes-ish, i.e. most of the second-last round, not the very latest. Will briefly respond on talk page now to keep everything there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for John Francis Jackson

 * Tks mate -- you had me wondering there for a minute when you tagged the article's talk page with four=no; I guess that'll become yes soon, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sir Richard Williams, images and the use of Alt text.
Hi Ian,

I change the Alt text to the Portrait of Sir Richard Williams by Douglas Baulch due to the way GOOGLE search works. Basically GOOGLE search BOT scans the alt text to determine how to index an image for searching. So previously it would be found when one did a GOOGLE image search for Sir Richard Williams, but after the alt text was changed to a generic description it would no longer be found (or if found it was more then 5 pages of images down). The GOOGLE search BOT which indexes the wiki page - seems to take an unknown about of time. So I would like the image to be found easy under GOOGLE search for both Sir Richard Williams and Douglas Baulch, so my understanding for this to happen most effectively then the Alt Text needs to include the require phase similiar to the Caption. So can the Alt Text be set to 'Sir Richard Williams Portrait by Douglas Baulch" ?

Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinBaulch (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin. I don't think the prime purpose of alt text in Wikipedia is to help people find a portrait in Google search; on the other hand, checking the guideline, it doesn't need to be a bare description of the subject either so, okay, feel free to change it back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup
Hello, you expressed interest in future meetups, a meetup will be held on Saturday May 5th at the Alexandria Hotel, further information can be found on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing you there!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of M.O.X (talk) at 08:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Air raids on Japan
Thanks for the reverts Ian. I don't think I've seen anything like this before: this guy has used three registered accounts and three different IP addresses to add stuff to the article. I left them a note at User talk:Terminalprp, but am yet to get a response (and am not going to hold my breath waiting for this!). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I protected the page for three days in the hope that not being able to edit will force discussion on the proposed edits. Hopefully he'll take this option. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks also from me Ed Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

FAC withdraw
Hi Ian - I wasn't sure if you (or either of the other delegates) had seen the nominator's comment at Featured article candidates/Bankers' Toadies incident/archive1, asking to withdraw the nom. Quite possible you have, but just thought I'd check. Dana boomer (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dana -- didn't have it on my watchlist, but have now actioned. Cheers,Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive4
Please take a look As you can see, I've done this three times before and I really want it to pass now. In previous attempts, it didn't because of lack of interest--do you know how I can get anyone else involved to say yay or nay? Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While you have to be careful not to be seen as canvassing, there are legitimate ways to drum up interest in a FAC nom. One way is to let people who have reviewed the article before, say at GAN, Peer Review, Wikiproject A-Class Review, or earlier FACs, know that it's around -- here's an example. Alternatively you could post a similarly neutrally worded notice at relevant Wikiproject talk pages. Of course everyone who nominates an article at FAC is strongly urged to review other people's nominations, not because we want people to do quid pro quo reviews of each other's work particularly, but to help reduce the backlog of FACs, which means the odds of yours getting a drive-by review are slightly better. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots FAC promotion premature
Hi,

I believe your recent FAC promotion of Mary, Queen of Scots was premature. I expressed a major concern (probably I should have said Oppose right at the start) concerning the article, which was in no way adressed. Really, I consider the article to be well-done in many respects, but not comprehensive (a key FA criterion). This view was shared by other reviewers. On the other hand, there were only three supports, none of which give me the feeling that an extensive review of the article was done. If you can, please undo your promotion and let me at least voice my opposition to this article being promoted at this time. Thank you, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's usually a judgement call in this position -- the review had been open for about a month, and three supports without opposition or unacknowledged comments is satisfactory for promotion. I'm afraid it's not possible to discern when a "concern" is meant to be an oppose. A number of recent royalty FAs do not discuss cultural depictions within the article but fork to a separate such article, just as this one does. That said, of course, Featured Articles are not set in stone, and you could discuss your points further at the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ian's decision to promote the article, and I would have done do so had he not beaten me to it. Your concern should be discussed on the article's Talk Page. It is not our custom to "undo" promotions. Graham Colm (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I still disagree with your judgement. However, I should have said Oppose. I did not expect an FAC with so little activity to be promoted anytime soon, that's why. All the FAC's I nominated (esp. this one) took much longer and we subject to much more scrutiny than this one here. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, there's no set minimum or maximum times for a FAC to run. One or two recent ones were promoted within a week or so of nomination -- a month is pretty average in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Reg Saunders
G'day, Ian, I intend to nominate Reg Saunders for Milhist ACR. Are you happy for me to do so? Of course, I will add you as a co-nom. I recognise that you have a few articles under review at the moment, so if you want me to hold off until a couple of those reviews close, that's fine. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm still ploughing through my watchlist from overnight and this morning so hadn't even got to checking that the GAN had formally passed... As far as my current ACRs go, well, a couple of them have two reviews now so I wouldn't have thought ole' Reg would prejudice their chances too much, so let's go for it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I've nominated it now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Op ed
Hi Ian, I've uploaded the op ed for the Bugle. I don't think that it's my best work (it didn't benefit from being abandoned for almost three months!), but hopefully it's OK. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, I think it's a fine effort (and not just because I agree with pretty well all you've said) -- thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Henry Wrigley

 * Tks Tony! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No. 4 SFTS RAAF
Suggested an alternative hook for the DYK proposal. Nice work! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks mate -- I'm fine with your alt, and will say so at TT:DYK. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
—Cliftonian (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spotchecks now appear to be finished. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I would've closed/promoted after Tim replied but it was past even my late bedtime in this part of the world, so Graham did the honours... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

FAC source spot checks
When spot checks are wanted and nobody is lining up to do them you can always point noms in my direction. I live 20 minutes' walk away from the British Library and am retired, so usually at liberty to rummage if needed. Is there somewhere on WP I can mention this to all and sundry? Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great Tim, tks. There's a permanent section near the top of WT:FAC headed Image/spotchecks needed or something similar. It might be worth leaving a note there with your offer, and it'd also be a place to check for requests. I'm about to put one up for another FAC, as we speak... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

RAAF reserve squadrons
Hi Ian, in regards to my edit and then self-reversion to No. 3 Service Flying Training School RAAF, are you aware of any source which discusses the RAAF's 'reserve' squadrons? It appears that they came in at least two different categories: 1) a nominal designation for a pool of aircraft and aircrew to be activated in an emergency; and 2) units which were formally established and separated from their parent flying school (particularly the three maritime patrol squadrons formed in 1943). They'd be an interesting subject for an article, but I've never found anything which discusses them in any detail. Nice work with the No. 3 SFTS by the way. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, yes I checked the links to those squadrons and was going to ask you if you had any info on earlier incarnations of 66/67, seeing as the ones with the articles clearly came about after 3SFTS was disbanded -- just didn't get round to it last night. Units and Gillison just mentioned unnumbered 'reserve' squadrons and it was only when I searched NAA I found this clear link between 3SFTS and 66/67 (I almost didn't want to)...! I think you're right about the two classes of squadron and it's clear that the two incarnations of each squadron don't overlap, but I have no other info.  Bit surprised neither Eather not Units mention the earlier ones though (at least I assume they don't from the WP articles, I don't have the books on me as I speak)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the Units books and Eather don't mention the earlier incarnations of these squadrons. My guess is that it's because they weren't established as stand-alone units at this time. I presume that these squadrons were deactivated in about mid-1942 when the threat of invasion had passed and the RAAF was starting to receive modern aircraft, and the numbers were then re-used when new maritime patrol units were needed in a hurry in 1943. Nick-D (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We're all out of awards, time to order more

 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Psst
I might be wrong, but I think out-of-process FACs should either be deleted as G6 (and the template removed from talk) or fully archived? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki, tks for reminding me about the article's FAC template, but I'm afraid the G6 reference eludes me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * db-g6. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course, kill it like it never existed so we keep the archive numbering consistent, yep? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * dear lord, you're an admin and don't know what G6 is? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait. You're not an admin? That's news to me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just deleted this as suggested by Nikki. Let me know if you ever want someone to nominate you for admin status Ian - you'd pass with flying colours (hint, hint). Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Heh, I never went to uni either, but most people seem to assume that I did. Must be some 'aura' I have -- perhaps I should take up acting... Nah, three people have been kind enough to offer to nominate me for admin and I've politely refused each time -- our mutual friend Nick was the most recent, from memory, and he's someone I generally try to accommodate... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ho-ho, speak of the devil -- tks for that, Nick, and I'm going to paste my reply to Ed that you edit-conflicted without alteration...!
 * Fair enough then. It's not worth the extra pay to be honest anyway ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you're considering moving onto elementary flying training schools, I'm working on 7EFTS at the moment |here (mainly so that both squadron-level RAAF units established in Tasmania have B class articles; I doubt I'll write any other articles on these units). Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for letting me know, I'll probably take a rest from flying schools after creating Nos. 6 and 8 SFTS -- and rewriting the unreferenced CFS article, eventually. Feel free to borrow the template I use for the SFTSs, by the way -- I think that first para of the main body I put in each one is a fair background for the EATS schools, though you may be able to add more detail to what was covered in EFTS as opposed to the SFTS... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, maybe if we pester him every day for the next month, he'll give in! I'll second Nick, if you'd ever like a co-nom, send me a message. ;-) Don't take up acting – it would subtract from your time on here (oh, the horror!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

my apologies...
Sorry, this was a touchphone fumble on my watchlist. I thought I stopped it just in time, and I did check my contribs immediately but it seems it didn't show up. Of coruse it's nonsense! cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, when I checked who you were, I figured it must've been finger trouble, just didn't have time to leave a message -- tks for letting me know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of No. 7 Service Flying Training School RAAF
Hello! Your submission of No. 7 Service Flying Training School RAAF at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Secretlondon (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Week away
G'day, Ian, sorry to do this to you, but I have to go out bush for a week (Monday morning to Monday afternoon), so I will have to leave Reg in your capable hands until probably Tuesday 12 June. I will probably pop in to the review a couple of times today, though, if any other comments come up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob, I should have access to most or all of the sources you brought to it. Have fun! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian. Sorry to do this to you again, but I have to go away again with work. I will be gone from early Sunday (tomorrow) until probably next Saturday (23 June, or maybe Friday if all goes well). I will probably be able to check back in tonight, but after that I will leave Reg's FAC with you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to be going okay, so again, no sweat -- tks for letting me know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, thanks for covering off on those last couple of points in the FAC. It was good working with you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise, be happy to do it again some time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for No. 3 Service Flying Training School RAAF
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Tks mate, very much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Clarification
Hi Ian, I don't think we've actually ever interracted. Just to be clear, I wasn't asking to add comments to the review. My understanding of FAC is that generally editors who collaborate closely, or who work on pages together, don't review nominations for one-another. At least that's how it's been in the past - perhaps things have changed? Instead, I was asking, in the event that another reviewer added comments before it was archived, whether only Ceoil could respond, or whether someone else could in his place? Obviously this all moot, but I'm curious about it, if a situation such as that might, for instance, come up for myself. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Heh, okay, I understood you to be reviewing -- I realised you helped with sources but as you weren't a co-nom, I didn't (and don't) have a particular issue with someone in your position commenting, as long as prior interest is declared (which occurred in this case). As to you making changes or responding to review comments on behalf of the nominator, I don't have a big issue with that, it happens occasionally, but I think one expects that eventually the nominator will return to the FAC... Interesting question though, not sure if there's precedent for transferring nomination responsibilities from one person to another mid-FAC -- if there was formal hand-over/take-over, perhaps... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that was misunderstanding, otherwise I would have reviewed. Good to know for the future though. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for No. 6 Service Flying Training School RAAF
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for No. 7 Service Flying Training School RAAF
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

DYK for No. 8 Service Flying Training School RAAF
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft email to the AWM
Hi Ian, I'd appreciate any comments you might have on an email I'm drafting to the AWM on the possibility of them releasing images under a CC-By license. I've started a sort-of centralised discussion of this at: User talk:Nick-D. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed on FAC
Hi. I've nominated an article at FAC: Featured article candidates/Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/archive1. There are 4 Support !votes so far; but there is an editor, User:Savidan, that is posting some extremely negative comments, and has actually induced another editor to provide an Oppose !vote. The history is interesting: Several months ago,  Savidan made some good comments on the article at the GAN, and I incorporated his suggestions, and asked for his feedback before I went to FAC. Here is my request on his Talk page. I pinged him for two months to see if my edits satisfied him. He did not reply, except to say he's "been very busy off-wiki". During those two months he made around 2,500 edits to WP. I finally submitted the FAC, without his feedback on my changes. Within 5 hours (!) of submitting the FAC nomination, he posted a lengthy critique in the FAC. My questions for you are: (1) Can an article get promoted with an Oppose, if the oppose is based on shaky grounds? (2) Can you give me some advice: Should I implement the suggestions he is making at the FAC, even if I think they will damage the article? PS: This user recently had an article that failed FAC, twice,  here and here ... I commented (but did not Support or Oppose) in his first FAC, but I'm not sure if that is related to his current behavior. --Noleander (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I don't particularly want to get into the background and possible motives of people involved in the review, but rather try and take a cue from what's there in the FAC. Yes, a reviewer who I understand has a legal background has raised concerns, and another reviewer has opposed based on those concerns. On the other hand at least one of the FAC's four supporters also has a legal background, so there could be an argument that those effectively cancel each other out. To answer your specific questions: (1) In short, yes, a FAC can be promoted with an oppose -- the circumstances can vary according to the FAC, and I won't go into possible reasons here and now -- as you can imagine, it becomes a judgement call on the part of the closing delegate; (2) Answering as a fellow editor and FAC nominator, as much as a delegate, if my gut feel was that suggestions being made by one reviewer were not in the best interests of the article, I'd hold off making changes for a bit and see what other reviewers' reactions were to those suggestions -- in your case, the FAC is still quite new, barely 10 days old, and the process can afford to wait longer to see how things develop. Hope this helps for the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good advice - thanks! --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Book review
Thanks for fixing up my awful typos and bad grammar! I'm about to add another review FYI. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not at all -- anything you write passes muster, I'm just a bit old school about "which" without a comma before it, and a group taking singular, etc... That's great if you have another review, "complete" was just to indicate it could go out as it was if necessary, didn't have time to leave a note that additions would be welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to badger some people for reviews, but didn't get around to it. I'll do so for next month though ;) Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Congratulations as well to AustralianRupert and yourself for the Reg Saunders article passing its FAC. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for that, mate, and for your help and encouragement along the way! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sadler
Hi Ian, I believe the issues that you cited on William S. Sadler have been remedied, if you'd like to revisit the FAC. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark, generally happy with the further attention the prose has received -- I tweaked one para a little, pls check that meaning is still as intended. In any case, however, the concerns are addressed and I'll be promoting it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've categorised it as a "philosophy and psychology" FA -- let me know if you think it works better under "religion, mysticism and mythology" or elsewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad you approved of the latest changes. Your tweak looked fine to me. That's an interesting question about categorization you raise. I suppose his mysticism took place later in his life, most of his earlier years would be better suited as "philosophy and psychology". Mark Arsten (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

AFL
Thanks for your thought on this; it's not going to be resubmitted for quite some time, I should imagine. Six months at the earliest. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter FYI
Hi Ian, as you may have noticed, the latest issue of the Bugle as delivered by EdwardsBot has the wrong section header (as seen right above this post). I don't know if this is an oversight from EdwardsBot's side or from the side of the person who ordered the delivery, but I'm leaving this note to you anyway. Its not a big issue, but just a FYI to note for further issues. Thanks!  Lynch 7  19:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes, an oversight during the delivery process, but those responsible have self-flagellated and promised it will never happen again... ;-) Tks for your understanding! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...yeah that was me, apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of articles
Hi Ian, I'm currently in the process of preparing Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy for FAC and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service for an A-class review. Are there any extra RAAF people I should be name-dropping in these articles? You've suggested adding Nicky Barr to the Normandy article previously, which I'll do - that article needs to be expanded a bit with extra material on the preparations for the invasion and Australians in RAF units from the official history (it also needs to be banged up and down a bit so it flows better, but that can wait a little while). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Barr's the only one I remember offhand from Normandy. Adrian Cole got his DSO as an aircraft controller off Dieppe I think, not Normandy. Neville McNamara and David Evans were advocates for the F-18 -- feel free to raid their articles for relevant wording/sources.
 * Now, I have a little favour to ask you: I'm debating taking a few of my lengthier unit articles to ACR for the first time, and would appreciate hearing whether you think the ones I see as likely candidates are about there in terms of detail, i.e. Central Flying School RAAF, No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF, and No. 82 Wing RAAF‎. I'll almost certainly be able to add a bit more to the latter two but I think CFS is about as in-depth as I can make it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Ian. The CFS article looks good to go - the only suggestion I'd make is that you track down when the unit became responsible for the RAAF balloon (I'm pretty sure that when it was on display at the ADFA open day last August (or perhaps the year before?) it was advertised as being operated by the reservists of No. 28 Squadron, so this must be a recent development). 1FTS is shorter, but is probably as detailed as an article on a training unit can be; I had real difficulty finding material on No. 6, 76 and 79 Squadrons to describe what they've done as training units, so I appreciate how hard it is to write about these units. My only suggestion is that you explain why the unit was disbanded in September 1944 (this would have been part of the rationalisation of the RAAF's training units at this time). I'd also suggest checking old editions of Australian Aviation from the time of the unit's disbandment to see if they published an article on its history. No. 82 Wing is well on the way, but needs more material on its WW2 activities (Tocumwal to Tarakan. Australians and the Consolidated B-24 Liberator is the best source here, and has lots of organisational detail as well) and you can expand the material on its F-111-era activities using Mark Lax's book, which is now available online (I want my $40 back!). Steve Eather's history of 6 Sqn (Blue Lightning) would also be worth consulting as it's pretty good. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for that, you've had the experience -- that I haven't -- taking unit articles to A/FA, so it was simpler to get your opinion than go to PR... ;-) I sympathise re. the Lax book -- I was almost going to spring for Evans' autobiography to get his article to FA-level when I found they'd released it in PDF. It's brilliant being able to get all this material straight off the web and, after all we're using it for volunteer work rather than making money out of it, but at the same time I feel for the authors if they're missing out on the odd royalty here and there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re. the RAAF Balloon and CFS/28SQN, I think the balloon may have been with CFS a while, per this. Rather than operated by 28SQN, it seems to be co-located with the squadron, see this. The latter's perhaps not reliable enough to put in the article but sounds plausible enough to explain the 28SQN connection... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it looks like the changeover was in 2007 or 2008 given that this 2007 press release says that 28 Sqn was operating them at the time. I've just removed my picture of the balloon from the 28 Sqn article (I note that I took it in 2008). Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Searched a bit further and found a DoD release concerning the 28SQN co-location so updated the CFS article. I think you could leave the balloon shot in 28SQN for that reason and, even though CFS is in charge, it looks like some 28SQN personnel, especially ground crew, are still involved in the balloon's operations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)