Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neil Hamilton Fairley/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 Karanacs 20:49, 22 May 2009.

Neil Hamilton Fairley

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. It is a former DYK article, featured on the main page back on June last year. Has since passed a MILHIST A class review. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech. Review
 * This reference,, appears more than once in the ref section, use a ref name instead.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 0 disambiguation links, checked with the dab finder tool.
 * *Ref 55| http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/fellows/apply/granttype/training/fairley.htm is dead, checked with the links checker tool.
 * They seem to have moved it. Changed to new page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

-- T ru  c o   02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that references 52 and 53 need publishers. Mm40 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They are web pages, not books. They don't have publishers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They do indeed have publishers: Channel 4 and the Australian Government respectively.  Artichoker [ talk  ] 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This is an great article which easily meets the all the FA criteria - excellent work. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review
 * Support from Dr pda. Prose is good, article is well-referenced, image licensing is OK (though a couple of the war medal ribbon images need their descriptions tided up), sources are OK, no obvious MOS non-compliance. As usual I am not an expert in the subject of the article so can't guarantee the article is comprehensive. There are a few minor things which need fixing.
 * The lead should have a sentence or two to cover "Later life"
 * Added a couple of sentences.
 * I added an extra sentence as well. Dr pda (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "First world war"—Was Martin the current or former Director of the Lister Institute in 1916? The current wording could imply the latter.
 * He was the current director. Added words to that effect.
 * "Between the wars"—The abbreviation AIF has not been explained at this point.
 * Added in the previous section.
 * "Middle East"—Fairley tackled an outbreak of bacilliary dysentery. Where?
 * Good question. Added text.
 * "South West Pacific"—but in bringing the problem to the attention of the highest authorities overseas, he lifted the global profile and priority of malaria control measures, with the matter being brought to the attention of the highest allied military and civil authorities. The last clause seems to repeat the first, as well as being a case of the disfavoured "noun + -ing" structure.
 * Also, the sentence is a bit long. Re-worded.
 * "South West Pacific"—I'm not sure whether the quantities expressed in tonnes also need to be expressed in US tons, per the usual convention of WP:MOSNUM. The one usage of tons should possibly be converted to tonnes though. (Since it's referring to American production I imagine the source did give a number in tons.)
 * The original documents give it in tons. The secondary sources use tons or tonnes depending on how recent they are, as no one understands the old measurements any more. (Actually, when it comes to tons, I have personal doubts about whether anybody ever did.)
 * I linked the first occurrence of long tons and tonne. Dr pda (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also fixed a few other minor issues. Dr pda (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck all issues. Dr pda (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Neil Hamilton Fairley.jpg - We need the full publication information for the source.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Lint Orde van het Britse Rijk.jpg - Please add a description of this image on the image description page. Done


 * File:BWMRibbon.png - Please add a description of this image on the image description page. Done


 * File:39-45StarRibbon.png - I think that the description of this image on the image description page needs to be more specific. Done


 * File:AfricaStarRibbon.png - Please add a description of this image on the image description page. Done


 * File:PacificStarRibbon.png - This image is missing a description, source, date, and author. Done


 * File:DefenceMedalRibbon.png - Please add a description of this image on the image description page. Done


 * File:Australian Service Medal 1939-45 ribbon.png - Permissions must be given to OTRS, not Wikipedia users.


 * Are we sure that all of the ribbons, except the last one, are user created? Since the last one comes from a website, I'm wondering about the rest.
 * Comment — I have updated the descriptions of most of the above images now, but cannot vouch for their provenance. Sorry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "Honours and awards" section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether or not all of the ribbons were indeed not self-made but taken from another website does not need to be addressed, since those images were removed. However, I urge these editors to address it, as it is bound to come up again. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

These issues can be dealt with rather easily. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the image issues have been dealt with. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments - mostly minor aesthetic points: Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that File:14 AGH AWM P00812.001.jpg, File:HQ I Corps AWM011887.jpg, File:Atherton Conference AWM134470.jpg and File:Atebrin Parade AWM094178.jpg be cropped in order to remove the horrible borders that surround them.
 * Why was Fairly appointed an OBE and Mentioned in Despatches during the First World War?
 * I have added the OBE citation. Unfortunately, there was no citation for the MID. It was part of a list GEN Allenby submitted of everybody who had distinguished themselves in the Palestine campaign. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same again for his CBE and second Mention in Despatches during the Second World War?
 * As usually, it is the Great War that has been lovingly preserved and who cares about the sequel? Retrieved the terse CBE citation. No information about the MID.
 * Yes, that annoys the hell out of me, too. Although, David Underdown has access to the UK National Archives which includes the Army recommendations for honours and awards in World War II, so if you would like to seek further information on his CBE than I'm sure David will be kind enough to assist as much as he can. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a few issues with the "Honours and awards" section:
 * Firstly, as you no doubt already know, the "Decorations" bit just seems like unnecessary list cruft to me and I don't really see the value of such a section.
 * I was just waiting for you to show. I have removed the "Honours and awards" section now, so no worries. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I am an annoyingly persistent bugger in this area, though you are always kind enough to oblige. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Honours" list mostly reiterates what is already addressed/mentioned in the prose, so I think this is a little redundant.
 * None of those listed in the "Medals and prizes" section is mentioned in the prose. I think information on why Fairley was awarded each of these and when should be addressed in body of the article rather than in a list.
 * Unfortunately, a list was all I had. Do you want me to add them to the infobox, with a reference?
 * Hmm, if you only have the list of information on this available then maybe just re-add the list in a separate section again. If it is added to the infobox then it will end up a mile long. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Nice article, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments *None of the Harvnb templates for "Butler 1938" (which is supposed to take the reader down to the bottom of the page) are working. These references are 7, 9, and 12. *References 5 and 57–59 need publishers *Shouldn't all of the London Gazette references have the PDF symbol as they must be viewed in PDF format? Mm40 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Added "publishers" Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure... they actually send you to an HTML page with the PDF in a frame. The London Gazette references are generated with a template. I have asked on the template's talk page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure about that one. For me (Firefox 7) none of the article appears in the background. I'm striking this as I'm sure it will be taken care of (and it's not a big deal, anyway). I'm also striking my other two concerns. Mm40 (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have modified the LondonGazette template to force the use of the PDF icon rather than the standard link icon. --DavidCane (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.