Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Bladin/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 20:55, 20 September 2011.

Frank Bladin

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Another of my older RAAF bios that passed GAN and MilHist ACR but which I felt just needed a little more work before nominating for FAC. Not a Chief of the Air Staff this time, but a quiet achiever who didn't quite make it to the top job, deserving as he may have been... Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I supported this article when it was nominated for A class, and think that the FA criteria are now met. I do have a couple of comments on elements of the wording through:
 * "transporting the squadron 300 miles away" sounds a bit odd, and it makes it sound like he personally moved all the unit's equipment. 'Deploying the squadron 300 miles away' or similar might work better.
 * 'Aust. Govt. Pub. Service' - this should be either spelled out fully or abbreviated to AGPS. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick, agree those points and changed accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks Graham. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Just when I'm trying to get round all the Milhist biographies, you go and nominate another one, Ian! Bloody typical! ;) Whisky drinker  &#124;  HJ's sock  01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't give the DOB in the body and it's not cited in the lead.
 * Ah, tks, HJ -- a hangover from an earlier WP convention that bios shouldn't restate the birth date in the main body...
 * junior public level—and for those of us not familiar with the Australian education system?
 * Well it's changed more than once since Bladin's time... I think junior level may have meant 3 years of secondary school, intermediate 4 years, and senior (or "leaving") 5 years, but then it could vary from state to state. I don't mind losing that bit if it seems too confusing.
 * Was it normal to spend three years at Duntroon? I only ask, because I believe one normally does two years at the British equivalent.
 * I believe he spent the regulation time there.
 * Anything available about how he met his wife?
 * Couldn't see anything in the sources.
 * I think I've mentioned the "during 1929–30" construction before—it's hideous! Is there anything I can do to convince you to get rid of it?
 * I only use this when it's successive years as it looks a bit silly IMO to say "between 1929 and 1930", and "during 1929 and 1930" could be interpreted as something occurring once in the first year and again in the second, as opposed to a continuous term. Anyway, happy to entertain suggestions... ;-)
 * Because any language or orthography involving just the years could be misinterpreted, you usually see months given (or seasons if you don't know the months, which would of course be a bad idea here, I think when you travel to the underside of the world the seasons get switched around ... quarters maybe?) - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bladin attended RAF Staff College, Andover—worth mentioning that he was serving at a British establishment (Andover isn't very well known, and one could easily miss the omission of the extra "A" in RAF/RAAF)and whether this was normal (I believe from some of your other articles it was).
 * I can spell out the posting to the UK.
 * How can he be an Air Officer Commanding if he's only a group captain?
 * Well he was promoted to air commodore shortly after so I guess they had that in mind when they did it...
 * A major engagement over Darwin on 2 May resulted in the loss of eight Spitfires and several others crash-landing through engine failure or lack of fuel, for the destruction of one Japanese bomber and five fighters.—I think you're trying to cram too much into one sentence. Perhaps remove through engine failure or lack of fuel to make it easier to read?
 * When I orginally wrote that bit there was no article on the engagement and I felt it should be spelt out; now there's an article I'm happy to trim as you suggest.
 * Should "2nd Tactical Air Force" be 'Second Tactical Air Force'? That's the title the article uses (and is more in keeping with WP:ORDINAL).
 * Happy to alter per your suggestion. Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Support now that my nit-picks have been sorted. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   10:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, tks HJ. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure of your shortened-citation style for ADB, as Dalkin is the author of the individual entry, not the whole
 * The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History or Oxford Military History of Australia?
 * Compare shortened-citation titling for Gillison vs Odgers vs Herington
 * Why sometimes include link from notes for Odgers and sometimes not?
 * FN 41: what is "W2"?
 * Date ranges, even in titles, should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again your eagle eye spots what everyone else misses, Nikki -- think these are all done, tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - A great read that to my eye meets all of the FA criteria. You military history editors seem to be quite good at these :) Well done on an excellent article that I would support for promotion to Featured Article. Coolug (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking the time to review, Coolug. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see an image review here. Ucucha (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
 * Okay, I thought we didn't need full stops unless there was more than one sentence (i.e. you have zero full stops, or two or more). Nikki, I'm assuming you're referring to the two post-war images since they're the only captions with verbs -- pls confirm... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, the post-war ones. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I've added them to push the review along but have to admit that though they might technically fulfil the requirements of a sentence, they're not constructed like any sentence I'd ever use in the main body of an article... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Licensing is unproblematic, under Australia's pre-1955 rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian's noms get promoted so quickly that I better jump on this one while it's still here.
 * Concerning WP:Checklist ... I'm open to anything anybody wants to show me in an Australian style guide, or any other evidence that professionally copyedited Australian manuscripts don't need second commas. This is certainly an evolving standard, and these commas get dropped in a heartbeat in all kinds of non-scholarly contexts, so I've always been concerned about the risk as coming across as fussy here.  But as long as all the guides I regularly use recommend it (see WT:Checklist), and without anything contradicting that advice, I'm going to keep asking for them, I think. So:
 * "Royal Military College, Duntroon": Royal Military College, Duntroon,
 * I tend to insert second commas these days; the missing instance was an oversight... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask for a footnote (in Footnotes, or just an ordinary ref in Notes, doesn't matter to me) immediately after "He became Air Officer Commanding (AOC) North-Western Area" ... nothing fancy, it can just repeat the basic idea from the link. Generally, we don't insert anything (such as an acronym) in the middle of any kind of name or label ... that is, readers are going to take the (AOC) and also the link as cues that the name of the position stops after the first 3 words ... and it does, in a way, but in another way, it doesn't.  They could figure this out by clicking of course ... but they rarely do.  They're a little more likely to click on a footnote or read it at the end, and even if they don't click, the presence of the footnote, especially coming immediately after the expression, will clue them in that there's something unusual going on with the name. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dan, not quite sure what exactly you feel should go in a footnote. If your concern is with the "(AOC)" between the position (Air Officer Commanding) and the command (North-Western Area) then there are other options such as "Air Officer Commanding North-Western Area (AOC NWA)", or "Air Officer Commanding (AOC), North-Western Area". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Air Officer Commanding North-Western Area (AOC NWA)" is a great solution to the problem, and the link would work IMO where it is or moved to AOC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "mentioned in despatches": Okay, after more research, I'm going to flip-flop here, and ask for "received a Mention in Despatches". "Mentioned in Despatches" is more common ... but as I've Mentioned (heh), outside the military, I'm finding zero evidence of "proper verbs" (except for proper nouns used as verbs, i.e. "Googled") ... I even tried a gsearch for "proper verb", and none of the first 100 hits gave evidence that anyone even knew of the concept (outside "Googled" etc.)  The point here is this isn't just an unfamiliar word for most of our readers, it's an unfamiliar part of speech!  I asked before that it be eithered lowercased or turned into a noun (Mention in Despatches) ... but now that advice just looks wrong, because the lowercasing is going to look wrong to anyone familiar with the lingo (including people who have seen it in newspapers), and the lowercasing also makes it look like it's not a decoration, which it was, or became. So, sorry I didn't get it right the first time, but I'd really prefer "received a Mention in Despatches", which AFAICT is at least accepted orthography. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dan, "mentioned in despatches" doesn't look wrong in lower case, which is why I agreed with that change when it was proposed. Most sources (see Bladin's Australian Dictionary of Biography entry as an example) express it that way. I think it'd be going backwards to try to force us to use "received a Mention in Despatches" in every instance, as it's simply not that common a way of reportng it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, stet it for now. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, we're generally linking "seconded" at the first occurrence.
 * Quite right, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "secondary airfields with which to disperse his forces": shouldn't that be "to which" or "from which"?
 * Tried something slightly different; let me know if not an improvement. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "and earned the distinction of being the first Australian ...": this is fine, but "being" is so out of fashion among wordistas ... you may want to consider "and earned distinction as the first Australian" or "was the first Australian". - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "resulted in the loss of eight Spitfires and several others crash-landing": a little nonparallel
 * Again, tried phrasing slight differently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "reported the Spitfires' "heavy losses" and caused resentment in NWA": I can't think of the solution right now, but this is also slightly nonparallel ... something will probably occur to you.
 * Perhaps, but not yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "but for his pedigree as a Duntroon graduate rather than having a background that was confined to the Air Force alone": slightly unclear
 * I'm not entirely happy with that sentence either but I liked including "pedigree" and can't think of a better way to phrase the thing overall right now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "he handed over to ...": I'm guessing it's fine in AusEng, so keep it if you like, but "handed over" is almost always transitive to my ear; "handed off" is sometimes intransitive.
 * "Hand(ed) over / take (took) over" is standard in military and aviation circles, at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "all-through": haven't seen this one.
 * Standard in training circles but happy to substitute "all-encompassing" or similar if you think that's clearer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks as usual, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made one [more] edit, it's ready to roll. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.