Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oswald Watt/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 Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011.

Oswald Watt

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominating this article because I believe it's a comprehensive look at a particularly interesting figure in Australian aviation, born in England of a Scottish father and joining the French Foreign Legion as a pilot in World War I before transferring to the Australian Flying Corps. Something of a jetsetter (if they'd had jets in those days!), he was clearly well-known in his own time but less so now, despite his legacy of the still-extant Oswald Watt Gold Medal for outstanding achievement in aviation. This piece achieved GA and MilHist ACR some time ago but I felt that before FAC it needed a little more detail, since added. Enjoy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether Cutlack short citations have a direct link to the source
 * FN 32: check title
 * What is ACT? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All actioned, tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I've made these changes to the article (most very minor) and I think that it fully meets the FA criteria. I didn't think that it would be possible to get this article across the FA line when it was up for an A class review, but Ian clearly has done so - great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "grazier" isn't the most common word in AmEng; could you say something like "before raising cattle" instead? I don't like to force people to click in the very first paragraph (or worse, not click and get the sense that the article is over their head). - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I always thought "grazier" was reasonably intuitive since it suggests "grazing", which is a common enough term. "Raising cattle" sounds (to me) a bit more hands-on than I suspect he was. The alternative that comes to mind, if you really feel it's a prob, is changing "setting up as a grazier" to "purchasing cattle stations" -- it also includes a link but might be still more intuitive for those poor uneducated AmEng speakers... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that, yes. - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, done -- I'll leave "grazier" to the infobox and main body. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To Australians, "grazier" also has cultural connotations. It should be retained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Legion of Honor and Croix de Guerre in M-W ... let me know if Macquarie's makes a different call, please. I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know what Macquarie says and it wasn't a serious consideration for me anyway. I like to see consistency so it made sense to have both French awards in the original language -- the fact that I'm part French of course has nothing to do with it... ;-) We now have one in English and one in French... Also you've committed the ultimate faux pas by using the US "Honor" instead of the Commonwealth "Honour"! Lastly if we keep the French language for "Croix de guerre" then I'd have thought we should retain the French case as well, i.e sentence not Title. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed "honour", back later today for more. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a chance to think about this on the drive to and from Thanksgiving dinner. Short answer: I'd prefer not to tout authorities and push standards until and unless it's causing a problem that I'm not.  I think Legion of Hono(u)r and Croix de Guerre appear more often than other names in both journalistic and scholarly English, and I'd prefer to go with those, but feel free to revert, and if you do, I'll try to hunt up a bunch of authorities for you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's okay, don't trouble yourself re. authorities -- "Hono(u)r" was the main thing. Oddly enough, I used to always use title case for Croix de Guerre until various editors started changing it to sentence case, pointing out that the case should match the language conventions, and I agreed. So I'd be surprised if someone doesn't do the same here if we leave it as title case, but I'm not fussed either way... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends whether the phrase has crossed over ... if it shows up in general-purpose dictionaries (especially in M-W), copyeditors usually take that as a clear sign it's crossed over (and sometimes you can make the case if it's in only specialized dictionaries).  If it's in the dictionaries, then all we have to do is look it up (for capitalization, meaning, and even to help us decide whether to use the English translation or the original.)  Disclaimer: copyeditors are conservative by nature, which means we engage in a lot of ass-covering. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "fired by the widely held conviction": Does "fired" mean "fired up" here?
 * Yep -- I guess it could be "driven" or something like that but I liked "fired". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Going through it again since this has been at FAC a while ... and finding almost nothing to fiddle with, of course ... but I've made one edit, to "Fired up by the widely held conviction that Britain would stay out of a European conflict, Watt offered his services and his plane to the French government on 2 August, the day France declared war on Germany." I'm having to be a little fussier these days to get articles through FAC ... I changed "fired" to "fired up", and reviewers sometimes describe the sentences as "too complicated" if there are two long phrases or clauses before the main clause. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want this to drag on but, looking at it again, I have to disagree with "fired up" -- "fired" by a conviction is quite a normal expression in my experience. Also while I have no issue with the re-sequencing of the sentence clauses I think we've now got too much space between him offering himself and his plane, and "these" being accepted by the French government; reckon we need to alter the following sentence to "This gesture was accepted" or some such -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your "welcomed", i.e. "The gesture was welcomed ..." Your call on "fired". - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks as always, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "its complement of Airco DH.5s were handicapped": "were" sounds wrong to some and "was" sounds wrong to others, so it's best to reword. Options: "the Airco DH.5s in the squadron were handicapped" or "the few [or give an exact number if you have it] Airco DH.5s were handicapped". I went with the first option; feel free to tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy with that and your other recent changes. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done with the second copyedit. Still supporting on prose of course. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Images appear unproblematic per pre-1955 Australia rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks again, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the infobox say "Commonwealth of Australia" Don't we normally just say "Australia"?
 * I think it was a stage we went through in Oz military biographies when I first wrote this -- altered to "Australia".
 * Interesting that Watt thought that Duntroon was a suitable site for an air training, with Mount Ainslie right there. One source told me that Point Cook was chosen because seaplanes could use it as well, but a blue orchid told me that the aircraft of the day had trouble with the altitude. Any sources on Ozzie logic?
 * Well, being able to fly higher than nearby mountains was a bit of a consideration then... ;-) Actually, both your sources are correct. Henry Petre selected Point Cook because it was good for both land and sea planes, and rejected Duntroon because of the altitude and the terrain -- added.
 * Any idea why he wanted to move the training wing to France?
 * I assume to be closer to the action again, but the source doesn't elaborate.
 * Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


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