Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Henry Cobby/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:55, 5 May 2009.

Arthur Henry Cobby

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominating this article on the highest-scoring ace in Australian service of either war, a gallant fighter but something of a tragic figure as well. Recently passed its GA and MILHIST A-Class reviews, so time for a go at the bronze star methinks... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Image review: images check out fine. No explicit evidence that they were published between 1923 and 2002; the only possible book appears to be Cobby's High Adventure, which was published solely abroad and not registered with the US Copyright Office. Regardless, these images were in Australian public domain by 1 January 1996, and so these photos are considered to be US public domain as well. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This is a great article which easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly support As one of the prime authors on the subject of World War I flying aces, I felt I should be rather scrupulous in checking this article. I checked all citations, and found them on target; the reference to the actual original text of military decorations was quite striking. This article is a well referenced one, showing the effects of much research effort, and is well written to boot. I can only hope that more articles of this quality can be written on the subject of pioneer fighter aces.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I commented and supported this article in its A-Class review and have no reservations in supporting it in this FAC. This article is well composed, structured, illustrated and comprehensive. My only comment is that the Australian Flying Corps should probably be mentioned in the lead as the service Cobby flew with during the First World War. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks Bryce - but I thought I mentioned the AFC in the second line... ;-)
 * Whoops! That'll teach me for skimming over the initial introductory sentences of the lead! Sorry about that. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment:The article repeatedly uses single quotes (i.e.: 'word' instead of "word"). According to WP:MOS, the use of single quotes should be reserved for quotations within quotations.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate - the single quotes were used to indicate expressions or figures of speech as opposed to direct quotes; on the other hand, the terms are also quotes from the sources so I've changed them to avoid controversy... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Comments. I think this is generally a nice looking article, but there are a few places where I think the prose needs sorting out before I'd feel comfortable supporting:


 * *From World War I: "... were thus considered a dangerous if valuable target." That doesn't really make sense. Only dangerous if valuable, not otherwise? Would something like "valuable but dangerous" be nearer the mark?


 * *Also from World War I: "No. 4 Squadron was credited with being the most successful fighter squadron in France," Awkward noun +ing. Suggest something like "was recognised as the most successful ...".


 * *From Between the wars: "He married Hilda Maude Urban in Caulfield, Victoria, on 24 April 1920; the couple would have a son and a daughter." Why the tense switch to "would have"? Would have if what?


 * *Also from Between the wars: "Cobby handed over to Squadron Leader Bill Bostock on 22 November 1931. He was promoted Wing Commander on 1 May 1933 and subsequently served as RAAF Director of Intelligence." Who was promoted? Cobby or Bostock?


 * *Also from Between the wars: "The resulting surveys of Queensland and the Northern Territory would provide valuable input for the establishment of military airfields and other installations following the outbreak of World War II. Once again, why "would provide" instead of the more straightforward "provided"?


 * *From World War ii: "... a role that traded on his name before the public." Before the public what? Presumably this means something like "traded on his public image"?


 * *Also from "... he commanded 20,000 personnel in the RAAF's major mobile strike force in the South West Pacific, comprising fighter, close support, and airfield construction units." Should be consisting of; parts comprise the whole, the whole consists of its parts.


 * *From Post-war career and legacy: "One of the aluminium cutouts of Charlie Chaplin that Cobby attached to his Sopwith Camel in World War I later went on show at RAAF Museum, Point Cook,[9] while the tail skid of one of his victims was displayed at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra." "While" implies simultaneity; were these two things displayed simultaneously?


 * Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)}}


 * All actioned, tks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.