Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frederick Scherger/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 SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010.

Frederick Scherger

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article traces the career of an officer who, if perhaps not quite as vital to the history of the Royal Australian Air Force itself as its "father", Air Marshal Sir Richard Williams, probably outshone him in terms of the impact he had on Australia's military and society in general, and was certainly at the top for achievements in rank and office being the RAAF's first appointee to the (de facto) role of Chief of the Defence Force, and its first Air Chief Marshal. Currently GA, as well as A-class on the MilHist and Aviation projects, I believe it's now ready for the bronze star... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have made a quick reading for grammar. On the whole, there are no glaring issues, but there are a few sentences that need to be looked at. I really only made it through the section on the 1930's, and I hope to get the rest done soon.
 * Scherger quickly took to the art of flying open-cockpit biplanes, and gained a reputation as a skilful if occasionally reckless pilot, being berated early in his career by his flight commander for "inverted and very low flying". (Comma splice in the first part of the sentence. Also, the" if occasionally reckless" part needs to be surrounded by commas or hyphenated as a compound adjective.
 * He had married Thelma Harrick on 1 June 1929; they had a daughter, Jill. (This sentence seems unnecessarily concise). How about "He Married Thelma Harrick ..., and they had a daughter named Jill." or something of the like.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Faced with the frightened woman and the enraged husband crying that he would "shoot the bitch", Scherger knocked the man down with a poker; the officer was placed under arrest while his wife was given shelter off the base, and subsequently resigned his commission. (The last phrase seems like a comma splice) Mrathel (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks Mrathel, but re. the other two points could I plead ignorance and ask you to explain a bit more about what "comma splice" is and/or the problem with it and/or a suggested alternative? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your confusion, as comma splice is totally the wrong term. These clauses have unnecessary commas:) In the first sentence, there is no need for the comma after biplanes as the subject does not change between the two clauses. If you simplify the sentence, u can say "Scherger took to the art of fly biplanes and gained a reputation...", which is correct while "Scherger took to the art of flying biplanes, and gained a reputation..." is not. The third sentence is more tricky but has the same issue, as there is no subject in the final clause even though it is separated by a comma and a conjunction. Mrathel (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I get you. Okay, grammatically I agree re. the first one, I think I probably included the comma as much for the sake of the citation than anything, but I can push that along. Wouldn't have thought we really needed the hyphens (emdashes I suppose) around "if occasionally reckless" but will do it if you insist... ;-) Re. the third, I'm not entirely happy with the sentence anyway so more than happy to take suggestions while I think of yet another way to rephrase it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Two commas removed - actually I've decided I don't mind that last sentence after all now (perhaps it was losing the comma!)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * I have a concern with the use of information from the archives. That's pretty much primary sources, and it should be used with extreme care, to only cite the most uncontroversial of facts. Anything more risks getting into WP:OR territory if you attempt to interpret the source.
 * I agree, so apart from some newspaper clippings and letters that are in there, I'm really only employing his file for the bare facts of promotions and postings. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.whereis.com/nsw/north-turramurra/sir-frederick-scherger-dr#session=MTA= a reliable source?
 * Well it's an online street directory so I'd rely on it to get me from place to place - does that count? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do they get their information though? Are they relying on accurate information or is it out of date? What's their reputation for accuracy? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously now, per this they're ultimately a subsidiary of Telstra, Australia's major telco, and they claim their maps come from UBD, which is about as reliable as street directories get in this part of the world... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm old fashioned, I use my brain and maps to get from Point A to Point B.... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks Ealdgyth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on refs Is it Rayner or Raynor? Multiple instances. All else looks OK. &bull; Ling.Nut 04:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Egad, it's Rayner - tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment can it be explained what the King's Award is? It seems like it could be important, like coming first in the training course, but there is no link or explanation. Cleaned up the formatting a bit  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate - linked it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: very well done, in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support – an excellent article that meets all of the criteria. I do, however, have a few comments, but they are not enough to withhold my support: Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "the officer was placed under arrest while his wife was given shelter off the base and subsequently resigned his commission" - I think this sentence needs to be tweaked slightly, as the final clause about his resignation somewhat seems to be referring to the wife.
 * Rejigged a bit.
 * Is it known why he taught Richard Casey to fly?
 * Something to do I guess. Seriously, no more than what's there. I didn't find it that fascinating myself, but since I wanted to use the picture I figured I may as well mention it in the text.
 * Is it known why, exactly, Scherger was awarded his CBE and CB?
 * Only the CB has a (basic) recommendation - tks for reminding me, I found it while making the expansion then forgot to use it...
 * The presentation of access dates in the cites are inconsistent.
 * Template issues but worked around them anyway.
 * In regards to the pain-in-the-butt "Honours and awards" box, there is no mention in Scherger's service record of him being awarded the Australian Defence Medal, which was actually established in 2006, and I could not spot any mention that he was awarded a "MALAYA" clasp to the General Service Medal.
 * Heh, re. the first point, somebody got confused with the UK Defence Medal; re. the second, page 3 of the personnel file does mention Malaya.
 * Tks for review/support, Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed in the writing.
 * "to date"—means nothing in two years' time. Please see the MoS on this: User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style
 * Fair enough.
 * and the early years of WWII.
 * Hmm, do we really need a second the?
 * Yes. Tony   (talk)  02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We won't split hairs... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Promoted to". This occurs again in the lead; can you check the rest of the article for the omission?
 * "Promoted " as opposed to "promoted to " is pretty common military terminology in my experience, though I welcome feedback from any military editors who disagree.
 * It's for everyone, not just military readers. "Promoted colonel" interferes, from my unfamiliar stance, with promoted him as a colonel (PR?). The readers can do without this grammatical jargon. Tony   (talk)  02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's curious that omitting the "to" doesn't seem a major issue for other non-military readers in similar articles, but I see that I've used "to" elsewhere in this one as well, so will go with the latter for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "the Northwestern Area"? If the military jargon is without "the", it's still uncomfortable for normal humans, but we could bend if it really would look strange to you.
 * As a regional command, forgoing the definite article is standard terminology. I suppose I could make it clearer by saying "North West Area Command", but preferred to avoid the qualifier after "commander" appearing immediately before.
 * Can you pipe to just "Darwin, Northern Territory" to reduce the blue dilution of all of those important links in the vicinity?
 * No prob.
 * -> "served in a variety of senior posts including"
 * Fair enough.
 * "at the age of 79"? You're leaving little grammatical words out ... is this a change in your style?
 * Not really, but editors in other articles of mine have sometimes removed the little words as they see fit and it hasn't bothered me too much either way...
 * It bothers me; feels stubby, not smooth. Tony   (talk)  02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Melbourne" hardly needed as a link, is it? They know it's in Australia from the context, and the article on Melbourne is kind of huge and irrelevant to the topic we want to drive them down right now ...?
 * See where you're coming from but this seems a bit inconsistent when you've felt the need to add "Australia" to the infobox even though it seems fairly clear that he and Victoria are Australian - WDYT?
 * Yes, but why link it? The article on Melbourne is simply not relevant to the topic; not vaguely. Tony   (talk)  02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I grant you the Melbourne article is not particulary germane to this article, although I'd have thought some non-Australian readers might like to at least know where it is on the map, but if this is part of a campaign to get fewer blue links in articles it may be bigger than this review alone. I say that purely because my level of linking in this article is pretty consistent with many FACs before and, while that doesn't automatically mean it's correct, neither does it mean a cleaver should be taken to the thing before I understand just where you're coming from. For instance, if the link to Melbourne goes, why not the one to Darwin as well, and not simply the one to Northern Territory? If the argument is that Darwin is more 'important' to the Scherger story than Melbourne, well no the town isn't in itself, the fact that it was bombed is - and bombing of Darwin is already linked. By the same standard, I think we can assume that Washington DC and Adelaide can lose their links, while Nadzab and Morotai should retain theirs, but what of Singapore and Kuala Lumper? I ask out of genuine interest, since my own linking policy is to err somewhat on the side of what people mightn't need and simply needn't bother clicking, rather than what they might need and can't click. What I have noted is that I've linked some equipment types next to names of equipment, e.g. SE5 and fighter where the latter isn't necessary if one follows the former, so will take care of those at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say the link is fine to stay, it's normal to link proper nouns.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  07:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just the lead ... it would be a pity if this weren't sifted through and brought up to standard. Tony  (talk)  13:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS "He was very pro-Australian, and why not?" (quote) ... the last phrase sure does show the cultural cringe, which is a good reason to leave it in. Tony   (talk)  13:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For now just altered certain aspects of the lead and responded above before moving on anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any new comments for the past day or two, just an update that everything raised has been actioned or otherwise acknowledged as far as I'm aware... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Images most are fine File:Darwin_42.jpg is watermarked, this watermark should be removed per MOS. The image File:Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967_Retouched.jpg, appears to have no history prior to digitisation, where did it come from to get on a slide? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Darwin_42.jpg isn't one I originally uploaded from the Australian War Memorial but I can probably remove the watermark and upload a new copy in the next day or so. Re. history of Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967_Retouched.jpg, doesn't the original version, Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967.jpg that was already on Commons, provide satisfactory info? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed watermark from Darwin_42.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, very comprehensive and appears to fully comply with MOS.--Grahame (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This is a comprehensive, well cited and well illustrated article which meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.