Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Garnet Malley/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC).

Garnet Malley

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to commemorate the centenary of World War I, I offer another Australian fighter ace of that conflict to follow on from my earlier nominations of Elwyn Roy King and Roy Phillipps. Garnet Malley's score of victories never reached the heights of King and Phillipps but unlike them he did manage to live to a relatively ripe old age, and is probably of greater interest for his association with Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists during the 1930s than his exploits in World War I. His on-the-spot observations of air tactics in the Sino-Japanese War might've been of considerable assistance to Australia as war in the Pacific loomed but his apparent status-seeking in China seems to have led the Royal Australian Air Force to take his reports with a grain of salt. This has recently been through GAN and MilHist A-Class Review, and I'd like to acknowledge Georgejdorner for the initial work that got it to around B-Class. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN4 and similar: this title shouldn't be italicized, as in the full citation
 * FN38: other short cites use fuller title - compare FN17
 * FN48: "shek" shouldn't be capitalized
 * Bean vs Cutlack: different editions but same publication year - is this correct?
 * Gill: which volume is this in that series? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, all bloody good points -- think I've caught them all, and highlighted that I needed to update the link for an official history. Tks as always Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: I had a look at this article earlier at A-class and having reviewed the changes since then, I believe that it meets the FAC requirements. For the purposes of this review, I have checked the following images: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Garnet Malley 1930 (nla.pic-vn6256044-v cropped).jpg: source checks out, and licence seems appropriate;
 * File:GFMalley.jpg: licence seems fine, although the source does not appear to state 1918 explicitly. This date appears to be supported by the article, though, which mentions Garnet's posting to the unit in in 1918. Perhaps this could be explained on the image description page, or a citation added?
 * File:LukisRichmond1925.jpg: licence seems fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not responding sooner, Rupert. Tks for stopping by and supporting, I suspect I said 1918 because that's the only year he was instructing in England but I should indeed add that info to the image file, with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco
 * Madame Chiang Kai-shek - Why not name her directly, rather than identify her with her husband's name?
 * It was the sources' common way of mentioning her, and I did think she would be better known in En-WP by that, but no reason we shouldn't educate people, eh? I think the relationship should be made clear without opening the link though, so how about "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, Soong May-ling" or similar?
 * That would be okay. I would hope that we are past the point where women are known only as Mrs. (Husband's name). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps not, given the title of at least one recent book I've used, but happily made the change to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * After the war he bought a plantation in Fiji, where he died in 1961. - died on the plantation or Fiji? This could mean both
 * Well, yes, but in the interests of brevity/flow I thought that since the plantation was on Fiji it was close enough for the lead. If you still think not I'll look at recasting...
 * the Oxford University air school - worth a redlink?
 * Maybe -- I don't think I'd be creating the article though.
 * was promoted lieutenant or was promoted to lieutenant
 * "promoted lieutenant" is standard militarese but if you think it jars for the general reader then I'm happy to alter.
 * If it's standard militarese, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Malley's final victim, - victim? Erm... is there a more neutral word?
 * Pretty standard terminology in sources, and I thought it better than "kill" as a variation on the ubiquitous "victory", but will have a think...
 * Alright... for me, at least, "victim" has connotations of crime. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * by a bullet in March, and shrapnel in May. - any information on these?
 * The exact date for one of those was not given, from memory, and they weren't life-threatening, so I didn't go into more detail but I could if you think it'd work better.
 * A little bit of information (like that these were not life threatening) wouldn't be out of hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Peace Loan - link?
 * If there is one, sure.
 * No article yet, but it sounds like a fairly large project (mentioned in at least 3 articles so far) so probably worth a redlink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The union would produce one son, Maldon. - worth saying "in 1940"?
 * Why not?
 * Uh, now I re-read it, the article says he was fifteen in 1940 and I'd rather not guess the exact year based on that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Malley's Ltd - I believe the MOS recommends we drop "Limited" and such
 * Okay, tks.
 * Southern Cross (aircraft) - mention that it was successful?
 * Was probably concerned about over-detailing but happy to add something.
 * One of the tasks she assigned him was investigating corrupt procurement practices in the air force. - did he have an impact? Also, link something related to the Chinese air force?
 * Yes, could certainly add further detail to this bit.
 * in attempting to evaluate his role and importance – both within the Australian aviation scene but more particularly the decade he spent in China ... it is plainly inappropriate to dismiss or discount his contribution; yet equally it is not possible to verify all that he claimed, and therefore to attach the same weight or significance as he did in assessing his impact and influence. - can we contextualize this a bit better? I mean, there's obviously commentary on his impact... but that's not evident from the article. Another paragraph would be grand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I felt the quote tended to sum up quite well what had been said in the paragraphs on his time in China (which for instance spelt out that any details at all on his first five years there was sketchy at best). The point I get from Chris Coulthard-Clark -- author of that quote and evidently Australia's leading expert on Malley -- is that there is little independent commentary on his impact in China. Perhaps I've missed something though so by all means let's discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why not move the quote up higher, where the topic's actually discussed in-text, rather than below, which is unrelated? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I've copyedited; please see my edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine with those, tks for looking it over, Crisco! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, Crisco, I think I've addressed everything one way or another now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on prose. Good work, Ian! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks again, Crisco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.