Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Burrell (admiral)/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 GrahamColm 04:08, 5 September 2014.

Henry Burrell (admiral)

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I got back into regular FA editing a year ago I seem to have alternated between military bios and unit or aircraft articles, so now it's time for another bio. For a change of pace, I offer a naval subject in place of air force. Burrell was in fact the first article I ever wrote on an admiral, back in 2009, and I took it to GA and MilHist A-Class but thought at the time that there might be scope for a bit of expansion, at least on his later life, before a shot at FA. I've recently taken care of that so here it is -- tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Minor point, I realise, but that lead photograph isn't very well-composed. Do you have access to any others? If we can't get better, well, sometimes you get what you get, but the top of his head is cut off or nearly, and his pose is very awkward. Of the other images, I found one potential problem: File:305416Burrell1954.jpg is labelled "c. 1954". That's not good enough when the copyright status depends on whether it's from before 1955 or not. Everything else checks out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks for looking them over. Lead image may not be the world's greatest picture but I think it's the best portrait available; I certainly consider it superior to the only alternative I've seen... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, File:306783Burrell.jpg is too vaguely dated as well. "c. 1950s" would imply a 50/50 chance of it being out of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Both these objections, by the way, can be ignored if the images are considered state or commonwealth-owned. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the Australian War Memorial sources, both are considered PD by the Commonwealth government. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine then. Sorry, but one does need to ask. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. I know next to nothing about modern warfare, so I hope my comments make sense.
 * "Burrell served several years on exchange with the Royal Navy" - I think served for several years would read better.
 * Fair enough.
 * " hockey, winning colours for the last-mentioned". A matter of taste, but I would prefer repetition of hockey to the clumsy last-mentioned.
 * Also fair enough!
 * "He went to sea firstly aboard the light cruiser HMAS Sydney" Presumably this was in 1922 but it is not clear.
 * Deliberate -- the sources state it was his first sea posting but not the year precisely.
 * Out of curiosity, captain in the 20th century is obviously a much higher rank than in the 18th, when a man could be posted captain and command a frigate in his early 20s. What modern rank would be equivalent to 18C captain?
 * I'm afraid I'm not enough of a naval expert to answer that, although in general I think that as you go back in time you find that senior commands were often invested in much younger officers than today -- part of it might be technology related, part of it simply life expectancy!
 * "his familiarity with ratings earned him the criticism of Devonshire's captain" Worth mentioning the captain's name? Did he not have any mentors/colleagues/commanders worth mentioning? I strikes me as a bit curious that hardly any other naval officers are mentioned by name, and none before 1942.
 * The source didn't think the captain's name worth mentioning so I haven't attempted to dig it out. When I walked through the article and expanded a little to get it ready for FAC I did make a point of naming a few predecessors or successors in commands, so I think I probably got most of those the sources mentioned explicitly.
 * " mentioned in despatches on 19 February 1943 for his "bravery and resource" during the operation" I think it is worth giving more detail of how he earned the mention.
 * The recommendation states simply "bravery and resource during operations Madagascar", so I think we've said as much as we can.
 * "There she participated in the formal surrender ceremonies on 2 September aboard USS Missouri." A slightly odd wording, as if she boarded the Missouri.
 * Does "There she participated in the formal surrender ceremonies that took place on 2 September aboard USS Missouri" improve it?
 * "It also resulted in augmentation of the RAN's rotary-wing assets " It is not clear what "It" refers to.
 * The re-equipment drive mentioned previously -- will clarify.
 * "The shift in reliance for equipment from Britain to the United States" This is mentioned as if it has previously been discussed.
 * It refers to the purchase of the destroyers mentioned in the previous paragraph -- will clarify.
 * "We will need a Navy as long as Australia remains an island" I would date this quote.
 * Precise date not available but it was while he was CNS so will mention that.
 * Was it normal to retire at 58 or was there a reason?
 * This is just speculation as far as Burrell goes but in those days I don't think there was anywhere for him to go after CNS except to become Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and that was never likely as a Navy man had been there not long before. These days a vice admiral might move into the Vice Chief of Defence position or one or two other senior roles before retirement, even if he wasn't selected for the top job.
 * A first rate article. These points are all minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many tks for your comments, Dudley. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Fixed number of columns in reflist is deprecated in favour of colwidth
 * This link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Nikki -- interesting about the second one, it must come from an older version of the article. I noticed the problem myself two days ago and replaced with this link, which seems fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * This is kinda fussy, but link the N-class article since you mention it.
 * Done.
 * Be sure that your refs are in number order, unlike this bit: 15 September 1941.[5][14]
 * Um, doesn't 14 come after 5? Or have I missed the point... :-)
 * It rather appears that I missed it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain more fully or link the General List? I'm not sure that I have a good understanding of what it involves.
 * I've explained a little bit more. Alternatively we could link to Navy List, although that's a general article rather than the specific Australian one.
 * Also link to the Second Naval Member. I suspect that this is the Aussie equivalent to the 2nd Sea Lord, but would like confirmation. And is that part of the Navy Office or the Naval Staff? Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not as familiar with the past structure of the RAN as I am of the RAAF but I believe they were somewhat similar, meaning the Navy Office was analogous to the Navy Department (as it then was), whereas the Naval Board actually commanded the service, being made up of the Naval Staff (i.e. Naval Members of the Board) and some civilians. In the absence of anything more specific I've piped Second Naval Member to Australian Commonwealth Naval Board. Tks for looking this over! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments.
 * "led to him being personally nominated by": Some copyeditors feel sure that this isn't as good as "led to an invitation by" (in this context). Others think that your way is fine, that it's better to use a verb when the sense is verbal, as here. There's a fair amount of prejudice against any redundant "being" in the copyediting world. Just passing this along, I don't have a recommendation.
 * Changed to "led to Prime Minister Robert Menzies personally nominating him"
 * "on the event": This usually means "on the occasion" (but I believe that testing will show that it's uncommon enough for an international readership that it's not appropriate, even to mean "on the occasion").
 * That was a typo, should have been "in the event of war".
 * Check for single quote marks.
 * Found one instance, corrected.
 * "desultory": uncommon word - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed "desultory Operation Vigorous, an attempt..." to "Operation Vigorous, an unsuccessful attempt"
 * "Illogan Park": Why italics?
 * My understanding is that house or farm names take italics but if I'm wrong I'll happily change it.
 * Okay, the case can be made to italicize. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan! One thing, I seem to remember "in fact" being somewhat frowned upon in WP, perhaps your old standby "as it happened" might be preferable in this case? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


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