Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Wrigley/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 08:07, 20 May 2012.

Henry Wrigley

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A veteran of World War I and founding member of the RAAF, Henry Wrigley was one of aviation's deeper thinkers as well as a top pilot, credited with developing a de facto air power doctrine and also first to fly across Australia in 1919, south to north (but not back again, and you'll have to read the article to find out more)... During World War II he was largely responsible for organising the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the first women's service in the country. Fans of the RAAF's higher command intrigues during the war (you know you're out there!) will also find something to satisfy them here. This article passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews some time ago but, as is often the case, info on his post-war career was somewhat lacking for Featured status. New sources having come my way since then, I believe it's now a fully rounded piece and deserves a shot at the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Wrigley1917.jpg: any more details on source?
 * Um, nope...
 * Missing bibliographic info for Hero's Dilemma
 * Heh, I clobbered the entire entry as I was adding a url for it a few edits back, without noticing -- fixed now.
 * Be consistent in whether page notation is spaced or unspaced
 * Damn, thought I'd caught all those -- should be right now.
 * Ranges should consistently use endashes
 * Ditto -- ditto.
 * O'Loghlin: italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've lost me on that one... Tks for your checks, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The O'Loghlin bibliography entry italicizes not only journal title, but also date and issue - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, my usual answer -- done it, and seen it done, that way before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) Support - all things fixed to my satisfaction. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Source review and comments
 * "... Laverton. Raised to air commodore soon after the outbreak of World War II, he became Air Member for Personnel (AMP) in 1940. As AMP, Wrigley was responsible for organising ...": Just a suggestion: "... Laverton, and was raised to air commodore soon after the outbreak of World War II. In 1940, he became Air Member for Personnel (AMP), responsible for organising ...". What I'm trying to do here is to remove "As AMP, Wrigley was" so soon after "AMP". - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * would you prefer "In this role..." to "As AMP..."? I thought about your suggestion above for rewording but "responsible for" makes it sound like that was his whole job, not one extraordinary task. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Some will read that sense into your wording too, I think. How about this? "... (AMP); one of his jobs was organising ..." - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, tweaked to that effect, along with a few other minor things in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "After further training in England, Wrigley was posted to France and flew with No. 3 Squadron AFC (also known until 1918 as No. 69 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps) on the Western Front.": Your call, you may prefer: "After further training in England, Wrigley was posted to France and flew on the Western Front with No. 3 Squadron AFC, also known until 1918 as No. 69 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps." - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds much better, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "having travelled", "Having taken off": Garner's would I think prefer "travelling" and "Taking off". (In a previous section, I left "Having been promoted" alone ... if you're talking about a recent promotion, Garner's would prefer "Promoted".) I can give some of his/their reasoning if you're interested. Do any style guides (for any variety of English) say different, that you know of? - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, you know me, I never read the rules, I just do what I've seen and done elsewhere that works. I generally use "having been" or suchlike when it's evident something for which I have no exact date has happened between two events that I can date (e.g. if I have a source saying so-and-so took command of Unit A as Sqn Ldr in 1935, and another that he took command of Unit B as a Wg Cmdr in 1939, but no explicit source saying when he was promoted Wg Cmdr, I can safely say he "had been" promoted between those two postings). If I don't use it in that context, then it may not be necessary, so will check on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't remember any style guide that I've consulted mentioning which tense to use when the time is unknown, and I'm fine with past perfect in the case you're mentioning. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "the original twenty-one officers on the Air Force's strength": "a body of troops" shows up in SOED as one definition of "strength", so I'm not complaining, but FYI, I've never seen that before. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see the term used in connection with an entire service, so think it's okay here. Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "he selected ... as WAAAF Director, over temporary appointee Mary Bell,": This probably means "passing over"; do you think it might be misread as "serving over"? If so, maybe add "passing". - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "founder members": I don't think I've seen that. Americans say "founding members" or "founders".
 * Personally I prefer "founding member" and used that originally but someone else wanted it changed to what it is now -- perhaps it's a UK/US English thing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Btw, I'm not linking to my edits any more because the toolserver was recently 14 days behind, so people weren't seeing my edits after clicking. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Great article, well-written, can't spot any real issues (Though I'm unfamiliar with the subject area). Just a few minor suggestions:
 * I'd suggest a few more commas, nothing major, but I'd add them "Later that year he took part in the first transcontinental flight", "For the next seven years he held staff posts at RAAF Headquarters", "In 1935 he published his history", "In 1966 he became executive officer" & "In March 2010 the Chief of Air Force"
 * Heh, I'm probably not consistent in my use of commas after establishing a date, although I tend to avoid them when there are a few more commas to follow in the sentence -- will have a look... ;-)
 * I noticed that you only have links in one image caption, maybe add a few to the others.
 * While I'm not actually averse to links in captions, my general rule has been only to link things or people not linked in the main body of the article.
 * Maybe add OCLCs to the last couple books in Further Reading.
 * Sure, will have a look for those.
 * "13,500 RAAF personnel spread across Britain, the Mediterranean and the continent" Was the exclusion of the serial comma here deliberate?
 * Another thing I'm probably not consistent in is my use of the serial comma, happy to add it there.
 * There are a few WP:PLUSING constructions here, not a big deal of course, but might want to check if there's a good way to rephrase: "with Wrigley acting for him in London", "with fewer than 1,000 RAAF personnel still remaining in RAF units" & "with the bulk serving with RAF establishments".
 * I might be hard-pressed to think of a different construction in a couple of cases but I'm sure there's scope for improvement there, will see.
 * The link in the citation to Ten Years at the Top doesn't seem to be working for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's entirely possible as the uni changed its URLs a while back; I thought I'd updated all the instances in "my" articles but may have missed one or two. Many tks for your review, Mark. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that link does work for me so I must've updated it -- perhaps it just happened to be down when you tried it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many tks for your time, Ealdgyth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot checks:
 * Footnote 29 is supported by its source and properly paraphrased.
 * Footnote 38 is supported by its source and properly paraphrased.
 * Footnote 51 is supported by its source and properly paraphrased.
 * Prose review:
 * Lead: Linkie for "Air Member for Personnel"? Is this an internal RAAF post or something with the government? Not being an Ozzie, I'm lost here...
 * Heh, unfortunately the existing Air Member for Personnel article is for the RAF position, not the RAAF one, so I don't think it'd help linking there. The Australian Air Board, to which the AMP position belonged, was actually made up of both RAAF and government members, though chaired by the Chief of the Air Staff, an RAAF position. I think explaining it would break the flow of the paragraph as it's not simple. I promise to create you an Australian Air Board article, to which AMP and similar RAAF positions can link, at some stage -- it's on my list...!
 * Early life: "...where he joined the cadets." The easter egg link here is not needed. For those of us not native to Australia ... "...where he joined the Australian Army Cadets." would be a lot more useful.
 * Yep, the reason I linked only and didn't spell out is that Australian Army Cadets is a modern name, in fact the "Australian Army" itself didn't exist under that term in Wrigley's youth. He simply belonged to the Melbourne High School cadet unit, which is effectively how I've written it, linking "cadet" to help the reader explore the topic further if they wish.
 * I think in this case, we'd be better with a bit longer explanation ... since you link to the AAC article, you imply that he did join the AAC (even if the article will show he didnt' really)... can we do "where he joined the cadet unit, which in (year) became part of the Australian Army Cadets."? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for him joining the cadets doesn't by itself support the information you're asking to be added in the body of the article. It's quite common to link an older variation of a unit to what it's since evolved into without such explanation. I do the same thing in the next sentence linking militia to its modern equivalent of Australian Army Reserve, and have done many times in FA-level article without a problem. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Early life: "HMAT A38" ... what the heck is this??
 * HMAT I believe stands for "His/Her Majesty's Australian Transport", analogous to HMAS -- however there's no WP or Wictionary article for it. A38 I expect is the ship's pennant number.
 * So do we really NEED this level of detail here? Is what transport he traveled on that important? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough, since the ship itself isn't notable (by WP standards), I have no problem dropping the name. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * World War II: "His son Ronald Neilson Wrigley enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy in September 1944, serving until demobilisation in 1946." is just oddly placed in this spot ... is there somewhere else that it could go? Its really jarring where it is.
 * I'm open to suggestions of where else to stick it; it seemed to make sense chronologically.
 * It might not be so jarring if there was a bit more connection to the surrounding text - do we have any clue what the son did? Did the father-son serve in the same theatre? Alternatively, is it really necessary that we know the son served at all? Could we shuffle this off to a footnote when we first mention the children way earlier in the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just drop it as there's little else to say about him and I think it might be equally jarring to mention it when we talk about his children, since there's nothing to say about his daughter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a few spots of prose that could use a polish and I'll be happy to support.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I googled three random phrases and showed no copyright violations either (all turned up those phrases only on wikipedia mirrors). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for the review. I'm sorry if the responses seem a bit obstructionist, it's just that there simply aren't straightforward answers for most of them (welcome to my world as an Australian military aviation enthusiast)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments This is another fine article Ian. I have the following comments: Support My comments have now been addressed. I'm pleased to see that my comment in the ACR that it might not be possible to develop this article to FA class has been proven wrong! - great work. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "returned to Australia on 6 May." - this is what's in the source, but given that this is the date the entire AFC embarked in England to return home, I suspect that it's actually the date he boarded the ship (comment only as there probably isn't much that can be done with this?)
 * Hmm, I get you and perhaps "embarked" might be more accurate but as "returned" is, as you say, in the source and it could also be taken as "commenced his return", it's probably the best we can do.
 * Should No. 1 Group RAAF be red linked? You should also very briefly note the role of this group (which Gillison helpfully explains on the page referenced)
 * Since it eventually became one of the RAAF's Area Commands, I was going to refrain from linking it until my (admittedly long-delayed) article on those. However I'm happy to describe No. 1 Group's function in a sentence here.
 * "As AMP, Wrigley was responsible for organising the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF)" - this implies that it was the extent of his duties, which I don't think is correct or what was intended. I'd suggest tweaking this to "As AMP, Wrigley's responsibilities included organising the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF)" or similar.
 * Quite right, tks.
 * The coverage of his post-RAAF activities is still limited, but is probably OK (especially as this wasn't the reason for his notability). Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As always, tks for reviewing, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You and me both! I just didn't think it was fair that ole' Wrig's article wasn't at the same status of many of his contemporaries, so kept digging... Tks again. Cheeers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


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