Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lou Spence/archive1

Lou Spence

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Following on (if belatedly) from Dick Cresswell, I present another RAAF pilot closely associated with the Korean War. Like Cresswell, Spence was a World War II veteran who commanded Australia's sole air combat unit in Korea, No. 77 Squadron, and won plaudits doing so -- but whereas Cresswell lived to become No. 77's longest-serving CO in Korea, Spence's light shone but briefly, as he was killed on a dive-bombing mission four months into the war. Whether the cause was ground fire or misjudgement has been debated. Personally I think exhaustion played a part, as the load he carried in Korea seems a good deal more than the average squadron commander. I find it telling that a month after his death the RAAF split off the maintenance, base support, and air transport portions of No. 77 Squadron and put the lot of them under a superior wing organisation, effectively relieving some of the pressure on the fighter unit's CO -- but that's all OR, so take with a grain of salt. Thanks to everyone who took part in the article's recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review

 * Disclaimer: I reviewed this article at GAN.
 * All sources assumed to be reliable, either from official sources or reputable publishers.
 * There's an interesting mention of him in this book, although I don't know if that is really offering any new information.
 * Tks for that Buidhe. I know this book but the last couple of times I looked at it in the library for info on other Korean War subjects, I found nothing of interest, so didn't consult it re. Spence. Naturally I find now it does contain something worthwhile, namely the author describing Spence as "increasingly exhausted", which supports my own impression of his state when he died, per my nom statement above. I may see if I can work this in to augment the bit I already have in the article re. his "increasingly heavy taskload".
 * Also this article might expand on the "Legacy" section.
 * Tks for that too. Your link lead me to Vernon Spence's obit, mentioning her later marriage to RAAF Air Vice Marshal Frank Headlam, and her being honoured with the Order of Australia Medal. Despite having developed the Headlam article, I didn't make the connection between Spence's wife and the RAAF widow that Headlam married. That connection may be more appropriate for Headlam's article than Spence's, but I'll see about noting in this one that Vernon received the OAM.
 * Other than that I'm not seeing any sources that would add to the article.
 * No source checks done because nominator has a history of successful FAC nominations. buidhe 08:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks as always, Buidhe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers Nikki! Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This article is in fine shape. I have just a few queries/suggestions: That's all I've got. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * in the lead, we have earning, commanded and receiving. commanding?
 * I think the way I've expressed it might still work best -- happy to defer to if he can stop by...
 * perhaps mention in the lead that he shot down two aircraft in WWII?
 * Done.
 * "whose role had been to defend" but wasn't anymore?
 * Yeah, it's a bit clumsy -- by now there was very little in the way of aerial attack to defend against but I think the role remained so probably fair enough to change "had been" to "was".
 * inclement? But Western Australian emergency of March 1944 says difficult? Difficult seems worse than just rainy. Up to you.
 * No you're right -- tweaked.
 * was he in a staff or instructor role at No. 8 Operational Training Unit?
 * Different sources say different things so I stuck to what they agree on... ;-)
 * regime→regimen?
 * I'm used to the former, and Wictionary mentions "fitness regime" FWIW...
 * the sentence beginning "Prior to the mission..." is overly long. Split?
 * Done.
 * Tks for looking it over, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No prob, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Harry
Nothing to sweat about; I had to actively look for something to criticise! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Did he have an option of remaining in the RAAF after WWII or was he compulsorily discharged?
 * As a wartime recruit the likelihood is that he would've been lucky to stay even if he'd wanted to, plus source days "demobilised", which in my experience means compulsorily discharged.
 * And why re-join (with a reduction in rank) less than year later?
 * His permanent rank may have been lower but his temporary rank was the same. I don't think my main sources mention his reasons for rejoining; I could see if newspaper archives offer more if you want to pursue.
 * It would be interesting if there's a source for it but it's not crucial. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?
 * This is really (really) picky, but is "interbellum" the right term? It bring to mind, at least for me, the 1920s and 30s—a period of relative calm between two periods of total war. Post-WWII is a different era and the Korean War didn't have naything like the effect on Austrlaia that WWII did so I don't think most people would think of the period as an interbellum. And I don't know about Australia, but in Britain we only recently had the first year since 1945 that no soldiers were killed in action.
 * I've used it before in similar bios but admittedly in Dick Cresswell's I used Between wars, which I'd happily substitute here.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * one of Australia's military observers to the United Nations commission "observers to " doesn't quite make sense to me.
 * Fair enough, did you have a preference such as "on", "with" or something else?
 * "with" works for me. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether he was hit by ground fire or had misjudged his attack is uncertain Uncertain how? Indeterminable from the state of the wreckage or some other reason?
 * The source says The aircraft was seen to hit the ground and explode—probably hit by ground ﬁre, but no one knows for sure., with the footnote Some accounts say he probably misjudged his pull out, but those who ﬂew with him doubt this as he was an expert in such attacks and had taught many of them. I felt my wording distilled this sufficiently but I could reword, e.g. Accounts differ on whether he was hit by ground fire or had misjudged his attack, which I think is also fully supported by this source (the only one I'm aware of that comes out and says the cause is debated, the others generally just say either ground fire or misjudgment).
 * Fair enough; in that case "uncertain" is fine. HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?
 * a tremendous impact... He was very popular I believe ellipses should be spaced on both sides when used in the middle of a quote (MOS:ELLIPSIS).
 * Okay.
 * "appeared destined for the highest levels of the RAAF" You need a ref straigh after the quote. I'd IAR if it was part of a string of quotes from the same person but you've got quotes from several different people here.
 * Are you sure? There's only once source for both those quotes...
 * But that's not immediately clear, especially as they're attributed in-text to different people (and I believe the argument for this is that later editing could result in the ref being moved further away). <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Spence was recommended for the Distinguished Service Order posthumously?
 * Okay.
 * Kind of you to say so, Harry -- tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Schrocat
Support. Another nicely put together piece. I've not found anything of concern, and consider this meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Gav, and for your edit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * Link Queensland
 * To reduce blue I prefer to link states/provinces if they appear on their own but not if they follow a town name that's linked (the assumption being that if people follow the town link they'll find a state link in that article) -- WDYT?
 * Umm, I have been accused of overlinking in the past, but your point is reasonable, so no problem.
 * What's the difference between acting and temporary ranks?
 * Heh, I sometimes think temp v. acting ranks were created especially to do in the heads of the uninitiated... Military rank covers it fairly well AFAIK. "Acting" ranks appear to be more temporary than "temporary" ranks, more for short-term expediency (similar to acting positions, such as when the XO is in acting command of the unit if the CO is away) whereas temporary ranks can last for years and not necessarily be related to one role/position. Anyway I should probably use that link...
 * Hmm, those distinctions between acting and temporary are Commonwealth only, I think. I don't think that the US had brevet ranks past the Spanish-American War. And I'm pretty sure that the US has used war substantive ranks from WWI onwards. AFAIK, acting ranks in the US have all the responsibilities and authority of their acting rank without the pay. "Frocked" is one term for it that I've seen in the USN. All that aside, a link will suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * of the war but often faced missing comma?
 * I think we can cope without but don't mind adding it.
 * I looked Spence up in Christopher Shores' A History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940–1945, volume 2, which is pretty much the gold standard for the aerial war in the Med. He also claimed a probable Bf 109 on 15 March '42, p. 61. ISBN 978-1-909166-12-7
 * Tks, will add.
 * Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Sturm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've dealt with these now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)