Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imperial Gift/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2016.

Imperial Gift

 * Nominator(s): Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the post-WW1 donation of surplus aircraft and related equipment by the British government to the governments of Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and New Zealand in order to enhance aviation in the respective Dominions and contribute to the air defence of the British Empire. This article should be a FA because the events described in it led to the establishment of Air Forces in four of the recipient countries, thus it is highly significant in aviation and military history. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * G'day, Roger, good work so far. Nice to see someone working on this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * for a Featured Article, I would like to see the lead expanded a little bit more;
 * I have expanded the lead to more than double the previous length, I hope it is now satisfactory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * not sure about the capitalization here: " Canadian Air board director of Flying Operations"...(seems inconsistent);
 * Fixed
 * inconsistent caps: "the Dominions" v. " dominions";
 * Should be lowercase when mentioning the concept of dominion and upper case when referring to specific Dominion(s), where it is a title. This is analogous to "a republic" versus "the Republic". In this case all should be upper case.
 * is there a link that could be provided to explain "dominions" and "colonial governments"?
 * Done - Dominion and Self-governing colony
 * link "Australian Army Service Corps";
 * Done
 * "At first New Zealand refused the offer..." is it possible to say why?
 * The source does not give a reason.
 * "companies, 1920–1924" --> "companies over the period 1920–24" or "companies between 1920 and 1924";
 * Done
 * "completed the SAAF..." --> the abbreviation should be formally introduced on the first mention of South African Air Force;
 * Done
 * "There is, however, no record of the B.E.2s ever being used after 1919" --> "According to author Dave Becker, there is..."
 * Done
 * "The combined facility was then known as the..." --> "The combined facility then became known as the..."
 * Done
 * this needs a ref: "The combined facility was then known as the Aircraft and Artillery Depot."
 * Done
 * " Roberts heights was..." --> "Roberts Heights was..."
 * Done
 * "File:Felixstowe f3.jpg": the image description page probably needs a US licence in addition to the current one...I'd says PD-US-1996 would probably be applicable (I think).
 * Done
 * All of my comments have been addressed, the only thing I wonder about now is depth of coverage. I have no knowledge of this topic at all, so I could very well be wrong, but the article strikes me as a bit light in its coverage. I think part of this is the perception created by the number of short one or two sentence paragraphs. Anyway, overall, I'm supportive of promotion, but I would like to see a review potentially from someone who knows the content well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @AustralianRupert and Nikkimaria Coverage about the Imperial Gift is actually quite sparse in most of the standard "go to" histories of the respective air forces, most devote only a couple of pages to the topic before moving on to later events. The Spencer PhD thesis is the only readily available source that covers the subject in substantial depth i.r.o. all the involved countries. In the case of South Africa I actually have a sandbox draft for a separate article. It's a matter of access, I'm South African and have many sources on my own bookshelf, as well as access to friends' bookshelves. When I first wrote the article I had a Canadian collaborator whose bookshelf filled a few gaps about the Canadian case. For the other countries I'm entirely dependent on Google, unfortunately sources for events of almost a century ago are not common online.
 * Would it be acceptable if I "canvassed" at the Aviation and Military History projects for a topic-specialist reviewer? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes, I think that would be ok. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * "The first batch of aircraft arrived in South Africa in September 1919 at the Artillery Depot at Roberts Heights, Pretoria where an Air Depot was established on 1 January 1920. The combined facility was then known as the Aircraft and Artillery Depot." - source?
 * Done


 * Legion Magazine should be italicized, so should Telegraph
 * What makes RW Walker a high-quality reliable source?
 * Removed - was redundant anyway as other (better) sources cover same material


 * FN16: publisher?
 * It's a website reference, the "publisher" is airforce.gov.au - a.k.a The Royal Australian Air Force
 * Okay. I note that your other website publishers are not italicized - should be consistent in formatting. Also, current footnote 17 is missing publisher as well.
 * "Cite web" doesn't actually use a "publisher" parameter - the website itself is the publisher. Is a standard "cite web" reference not acceptable for FA articles? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Er...cite web does use publisher . You can use website instead if you want, as long as you do so consistently. But at the moment, many of your other web refs are using publisher . Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct - I've edited them to consistently use "publisher". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why the different formatting between FN15 and 21?
 * I don't see it, please explain
 * Now 13 ("ADF Serials") and 19 ("Adf-serials.com.au")
 * Fixed Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * FN28 is missing date
 * No, the date is there
 * Now 27, Maxwell and Smith
 * Date added. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * How does Spencer meet Wp:SCHOLARSHIP?
 * As a Ph.D dissertation surely it is the most "scholarly" of all the cited sources?
 * Take a look at point 3 for discussion of the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's being used for basic facts; "A said this...", "B did that..." - there's no scholarly interpretation or opinion involved, so it should be just as acceptable as if it were a newspaper article or non-academic book. If the author got such basics wrong he would surely not have got the Ph.D., we have no grounds to doubt these basic factual claims, they also match other sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Shores: where in Ontario? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed - Stoney Creek


 * My responses interleaved above. Thanks for the review. The outstanding item - expanding the lead - will be seen to ASAP, but right now my bed is calling... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @AustralianRupert and @Nikkimaria - I hope I have adequately addressed all the issues raised thus far. Could we complete the process by Friday as I will be away from home for a few days from Saturday? Thanks for your contributions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I am just looking at the Australian section.
 * Comments
 * Per source 10: The government accordingly formed the Air Services Committee (ASC) as a temporary body to organise the new air force. Not the Australian Army Service Corps (AASC).
 * AIUI, it was the AASC that advised the government to create the Air Services Committee. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. And you source the sentence to Dennis et al, p. 59, which does not mention the ASC at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The sentence starting with "On 30 June 1919" is sourced from source 10, not source 14
 * Not source 10, which is http://www.airhistory.org.uk/gy/ImperialGifts.html
 * Source 12 now; Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Are the aircraft numbers and types coming from source 12 or source 13?
 * The sources currently cited are Connor (2011) and http://www.adf-serials.com/1a1.htm There is also a list at http://www.airhistory.org.uk/gy/ImperialGift-Aus.html
 * That is not what they are marked as. There is Connor after the colon, but source 15 halfway down the list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The RAAF was formed on 31 March 1921. I think the full date should be used here.
 * Done


 * A2-4 (RAAF serial) was C1916 (RAF serial) and A3-4 was H2174, if you want to be consistent with "Airco/de Haviland DH-9a (A1-17/F2779)"
 * Done


 * You might mention that the 28 additional aircraft replaced 44 aircraft gifted to the RFC/RAF during the Great War
 * Already mentioned in the sentence just before the list.
 * No, it just says "aircraft"; the reader might reasonably assume they were replaced on a one-for-one basis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Treloar Technology Centre is an annex of the Australian War Memorial in the Canberra industrial suburb of Mitchell. I suppose it is "on display" there, but the Treloar Technology Centre is only open to the public once a year.
 * Changed to "...stored at the Treloar Technology Centre..."


 * Do we have to use ISO 8601?
 * Is there a good reason not to?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hawkeye7. I didn't write most of this section as I don't have access to the specifically Australian book sources. Those parts were contributed by someone else. If you have time and opportunity I'd really appreciate your further input. Other specific comments interleaved above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but the South Africa section has too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Dank Thanks for your contribution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments While it's good to see this article has been developed into a very solid and useful article, I don't think it's FA standard at present I'm afraid.
 * Following up on Hawkeye's comments above, I'd suggest describing the aircraft in the Treloar Technology Centre as being "in storage" or similar; as Hawkeye notes this storage facility is only occasionally opened to the public, and the items in it tend to be squished in to make good use of the available space rather than displayed
 * Done


 * I'm a bit surprised to see that much of the "Australia" section is referenced to relatively low-quality sources, and no use has been made of the excellent official histories of the force during this era which are available online here - see in particular pages 159-172 of this book.
 * Thanks, I'll take a look at them, but if anyone else feels like jumping in, please do so.


 * The single-para "background" section is rather under-developed, and I'm surprised there isn't a "legacy" section or similar discussing the long-term results of this program.
 * I'll see what I can do about expanding the "Background" section. The long term "legacy" is the creation of four national air forces - explained in the lead. Should it be moved to a specific "Legacy" section? I added that detail to the lead after earlier comments that the lead was too short.


 * More generally, the sections on each air force don't really discuss the impact the aircraft had, or how they were used.
 * I have sources for such detail only for the SAAF, which I've used in a separate article currently in my sandbox at User:Dodger67/Sandbox/South Africa's Imperial Gift. Early in the article's history I was advised by a fellow contributor to remove that detail because it "unbalanced" the article.

Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Nick-D. I have interleaved my specific responses above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- With no work or commentary for a month, this nom seems to have stalled without approaching consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. It may be worthwhile nominating for MilHist A-Class Review before looking at another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.