Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John McCauley/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 19:12, 4 July 2011.

John McCauley

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon&mdash;that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals John McCauley, Frederick Scherger, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch. Scherger went through FAC a while back, and now it’s time for the rest, starting with McCauley, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Hancock and Murdoch, also GA/A, will follow (you've been warned)... ;-) Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Support for Spot check only I spot checked 3 sentences sourced to 3 difference sources, and found no close paraphrase or plagiarism. I do have a concern: How does Odgers, Air War Against Japan, p. 194 support "As a result, RAAF Headquarters increased the supply of pilots and equipment to the group, which was then able to meet, and later exceed, the rate of effort achieved by comparable US Fifth Air Force units."? I can't read the page as supporting the assertion. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether shortened citations use the title of the volume or the entire work
 * Ref 23: you're citing one sentence to over one hundred pages?! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- well-spotted as usual... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The passage in Odgers p.194 relating to the article sentence above is:
 * "After considerable interchange of signals with R.A.A.F. Headquarters, the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff personally visited the Group (Air Commodore McCauley arrived at Nadzab on 4th March) and was convinced by General Whitehead that either our units flew the hours required of them or they would not be given aerodrome space in the forward areas. As a result of this visit, the number of pilots per squadron was increased to thirty and the number of aircraft to twenty-four, with a further thirty-six in immediate reserve at a repair and service unit. It was gratifying to find later that the steps taken by Air Force Headquarters to build these units to a level where they were capable of rates of effort comparable with those of the Americans, resulted, later in the year, in the squadrons of No. 78 Wing consistently outflying similar American units."
 * I deliberately trimmed and paraphrased this into one succinct sentence but of course it's possible I inadvertedly altered meaning. Re-reading it, though, it still makes sense to me so can you be more specific about how the source doesn't support the sentence as I have it? Is it that I've used the overarching "group" rather than "78 Wing" (the wing being one of the major formations operating within the group)? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had a hard time working through the AWM prose (it is a particular and technical style I don't often encounter), and wasn't reading the sense properly. Your quote let me see it perfectly!  Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Support Already reviewed at the A-class review. Some more comments, ignore them if you like: Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He prevented RAF headquarters from dissolving No. 21 Squadron and using its personnel as a labour force on Sumatra, instead arranging their transport as a unit to Batavia What happened after that? Did they make it back to Australia or spend the rest of the war working on the Burma railway?
 * The British had actively sought him for this particular appointment This comes out of the blue (so to speak) as he never attended staff college and had little staff experience. The reader is left to presume that it was a result of his defeating the Japanese (or not) in Malaya. Anything more known?
 * It seems that such an important post is worth more than one sentence. Is anything more known about 2nd TAF operations in 1945?
 * Many tks mate. Yes 21SQN did make it back to Oz, so added a bit. I think you or others raised the question re. 2TAF but I'm afraid I still have the same answer -- nothing more in sources I've already used, nor in Trove, and I'm afraid I can't think of anywhere else right now. Tks for stopping by. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Image check: In theory, these images are not in the PD in the US. However, the Government of Australia implies that they are in the public domain worldwide. Certainly, that is the rationale File:P01152.001McCauleyDuntroon1919.jpg. If their statement is accepted (we accept the British government's explicit statement to the same effect, for example), then it should be easy enough to copy across a similar rationale - most easily via a special licensing tag. Other images look OK. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 21:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * File:McCauley1953.jpg: needs a US licensing statement.
 * File:014356McCauley.jpg: needs a US licensing statement.
 * File:MALTA0051McCauleyHardman.jpg: needs a US licensing statement.
 * The age of this article means some of its image tagging dates from liberal times on WP, however the pictures are certainly PD according to Australian law so utilised a similar tag to the Duntroon file -- thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and created a special licensing tag that accepts their release as applying worldwide. What do you think? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind it but I'm not sure why we need another template when the second one in the Duntroon file, which highlights how the PD applies "worldwide" and which I've added to the others you've mentioned, has always sufficed up till now, for instance in the last RAAF officer article I submitted to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been a major concern; that releasing works into the public domain in Australia would lead to their being copyrighted by US companies. There has been talk about setting up an Australian Commons, where we can upload images without reference to their status in the US. I would not upload an AWM image to Commons because they have the AWM watermark. I have had images deleted from Commons because of that. Always best to keep them on the English Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would only (personally) prefer a template so it's clear that we're relying on their assertion. It highlights where the dependency in a clear way. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment (ignore it if you like) For all the Royal Australian Air Force 1939–1942 and similar PDF sources, why don't you link the title instead of both the title and the page ranges? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 09:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I appreciate it when anyone comes along to a FAC I've nominated, so I try never to ignore a question... ;-) I link the page numbers as well as the title to indicate that it's not all one big PDF to which the citations are referring, that the links are a bit more granular than that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)
 * I notice that "Nos. 1 and 8 Squadrons" has a full stop but "Nos 21 and 453 Squadrons" doesn't.
 * Well spotted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What does Macquarie say about "emanating" [from the base]? I would have said "originating".
 * –verb (used without object) to flow out, issue, or proceed, as from a source or origin; come forth; originate.
 * –verb (used with object) to send forth; emit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds from Hawkeye's post that it's okay (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not actually against "originating", I just always thought the current wording was appropriate and a bit different. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The connotation I've always seen (though I have a strong AmEng bias, so my sense of the word may not be very relevant) is "flow out" or "emit", with a connotation of "oozing". - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've seen the expression "flights emanating from so-and-so airfield" in my time, but if one other reviewer thinks it sounds odd I promise to change it to "originating"...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "he stated his reason as being that there was" feels wordy to me.
 * Fair enough, tweaked a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "being followed by Air Marshals": I think I'd say "followed by Air Marshals".
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "though in the event the French Dassault Mirage III was purchased": Almost no Americans will follow this. Can you substitute "in fact" or some other expression for "in the event"?
 * (Checks with American.) It is understood okay. The term is used in all the airline safety talks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Did the American think it meant "though if [it] was purchased"?  Because that's not what it means. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always understood "in the event that" to mean "if", whereas "in the event" simply means "as it happened" (which I didn't use because it sounded a bit informal), "as it transpired" (which sounded a bit old-fashioned), or "in fact" (which has generally been frowned upon in WP in my experience). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've met very few Americans who know what the expression means. I've asked at WT:MIL; it's possible that military folks are more aware than others. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Used it in a few articles without issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "front-line 'bare bases' across Northern Australia": These should probably be double quotation marks, since WP:MOS recommends them, and since you're using double quotation marks everywhere else.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "became its first Chairman": I'd lowercase "chairman". - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done,. Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the status of this FAC, it's been 9 days since any comment was made, from what I can see the article meets the FACR. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:23pm • 11:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Support with comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we know his children's names?
 * Yes we do, but per Wikipedia talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_28, since they are living and not notable, the accepted practice is not to put their names in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "ordering units to draft doctrine relevant to their combat roles" - as a non-specialist I'm not sure what this means
 * Could be worded as "write policy..." I guess, if necessary. Hawkeye, do you see a big diff between "policy" and "doctrine" in this instance? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "the pre-war Air Force" - but this is the inter-war period, so if you want to use that phrase you likely should specify which war
 * If someone only served in one world war I think it's okay, and I see military writers use the term in similar circumstances without qualifying it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is "handed over" a military term? I would be more used to reading "handed it over" or similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pilots and co-pilots talk of "handing over / taking over" control of an aircraft, and the expression seems to be applied to the transfer of authority re. commands as well. I didn't set out to use military terminology but as an air force brat and former defence contractor it probably creeps into my everyday speech/writing. Anyway, hopefully it works in context. Thanks a lot for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Image issues unresolved, but I can't force reviewers to engage. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


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