Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roy Dowling/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 16:09, 28 March 2012.

Roy Dowling

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Royal Australian Navy officer to follow on from Hector Waller, but one who survived World War II and made his major contributions afterwards, becoming Chief of Naval Staff and subsequently advancing to Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) -- sort of a poor man's Chief of Defence Force. He also seems to have been a pronounced anglophile (in contrast to his successor as Chairman COSC, Air Marshal Fred Scherger) who only reluctantly began to sever the RAN's traditional ties to Britain in favour of a more modern US-centric position. Anyway, hope you enjoy it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tiny point and possibly of no consequence but, in File:An014908Dowling&Son1952.jpg, "Commodore" Dowling appears to be  wearing the sleeve insignia of a Rear-Admiral (unless RAN insignia differ from RN?). Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Brian, it threw me at first too but then according to the caption he was Commodore 1st Class, who (at least in days gone by) could wear the sleeve insignia of a RADM... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I had two uncles who were naval officers (neither of them admirals), and I think I was prompted by their shades. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't bracket ellipses unless there are ellipses in the source
 * I recall you mentioned this during the article's A-Class Review... My response then was that the source itself used ellipses after "as you know, and" so I left them exactly as they were. Then I left a sentence or two out myself, so I bracketed the ellipses to distinguish that. As before, I've no prob altering if there's another commonly accepted style...
 * Is there a comma in the Gill titles? Bibliography has one, citations don't
 * God you're a picky so-and-so -- but we wouldn't have it any other way... ;-)
 * Might add a border to File:Naval_Ensign_of_Australia.svg in the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You learn a new parameter every day -- tks for that suggestion, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks: Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * fn 3, 4, 7, 8, 28, 34, 41 - all okay; no close paraphrase.
 * First sentence of World War II section is not supported by source 3; use source 1 instead.
 * Comments:
 * Venturous points to V and W class destroyer rather than to HMS Venturous (1917), a red link.
 * ADB says he participated in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), but this is not in the text or infobox
 * Six days later, having been promoted to vice admiral He was promoted to vice admiral on 7 June 1955, two days before getting his gong; the text seems to imply that it was afterwards. (could just be my befuddled brain though)

Support - my concerns addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)
 * This is just a copyeditor's take on the problem mentioned above with "[...]". The blockquote begins:
 * In the past we have depended entirely on the United Kingdom as you know, and ... would prefer to keep it that way. [...] We now find ourselves at the crossroads because we very much doubt whether the United Kingdom can provide us with what we want in the future. We have no wish to become Americans


 * You're implying that readers will know that "[...]" must mean "ellipses mine" and "..." must mean "ellipses in original". But WP isn't full of punctuation expressing fine, carefully drawn distinctions, so I don't know why the readers would assume that here.  One option would be simply to delete the first sentence, since it is more or less implied by the follow sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about readers, Dank, the way I've done it was actually my interpretation of what MOS says (I could've interpreted it wrongly). I also agree one way of getting round it is simply to drop the first sentence; another is to say damn the torpedoes and put in the part I took out, since I think it was just a sentence or two. I'll re-read and think about it...
 * Looking at it again, I know why I dropped the interleaving sentences -- they weren't that interesting compared to the rest of the quote...! I agree, the first bit isn't really necessary either as we've established that point well enough beforehand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this all. The first sentence is actually the really the important one. Deleting it changes the whol;e meaning and makes him sound like an Australianist instead of a loyalist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment was mainly about the punctuation; I don't have a preference on the wording. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Really? With a line like "For that we are not less loyal members of the Empire" as a closer...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "were its relegation—since 1950–51—to third place": I understand you want to be accurate, but it raises some questions it doesn't answer ... would it be totally misleading to just say 1950 or 1951?
 * Well, since we're talking budget allocation, I'm guessing the 1950–51 construction was deliberate, meaning Financial Year 1950–51 (FY 1950–51 would begin on 1 July 1950) so I'm not really sure which single year it would be best to choose, though admittedly FYs are sometimes abbreviated in Australia to the second of the two years involved, so "1951" might be perfectly valid. Another option is just saying "since the start of the decade" or some such, WDYT?
 * Either of those would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Plumped for the latter, more or less. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Nicely written with solid military background. As a UK reader with a little (not much) knowledge of naval procedure and history, it made interesting reading. I have a number of relatively minor quibbles, and a few requests for further clarification:-
 * Lead: the executive officer link would be improved by making it executive officer. However, I am not at all sure that the term "executive officer" would have been used in the Royal Navy to denote the second-in-command of a battle cruiser as long ago as the Second World War. Probably "the Commander" (which could confuse our US readers)
 * Well it is the term employed by the admiral who authored the source, so I think I'd better stick with it -- but certainly happy to finetune the link as suggested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Early career: "The youth entered the Royal Australian Naval College (RANC) at Jervis Bay, in what was then the Federal Capital Territory, in 1915." This is hard for non-Australians to understand, even with the links, and very complicated to explain. I would be inclined to delete "in what was then the Federal Capital Territory", as there is no specific relevance in this information.
 * Took out "in what was then" to cut wording. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "By January 1923 he was back in Australia, aboard the cruiser HMAS Adelaide." Clarify whether this means he was serving on Adelaide; "aboard" is inspecific
 * Agreed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Awkward "ing...ing" arises with "posting, studying..." Perhaps "appointment" rather than posting? And surely "training" would be a better word than "studying" which sounds far too academic
 * One isn't usually "appointed" to undergo training but since we've mentioned in the same breath that he held the position of gunnery officer, I've gone with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Jessie accompanied him" a touch informal?
 * Thought it was fair enough since I'd just mentioned her, and better than "his wife" -- no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the section really about his "early career"? By the end of it he is 38 and holding senior rank, so it may be worth splitting the section.
 * Fair enough, prefer renaming it "Pre-war career" to splitting if that works for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Second World War: Can you specify where and in what form Dowling wrote the lines you quote?
 * The source presents it in exactly that form, with the byline Captain R.R Dowling, DCNS, October 1943. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dowling took her out on her shakedown cruise..." Maybe drop the word "out"
 * Agreed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Postwar career: "Dowling was given the chance to take command of Australia's first aircraft carrier, HMAS Sydney" Unnecessarily wordy; surely he was given the command, not "given the chance to take command"?
 * Agree that "take command of" was a bit much and dropped "take" and "of" but the source did emphasise the "great opportunity" this presented him -- happy to consider other ways to put it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dowling embarked Sydney for Australia" This wording reads strangely; is a word missing ("embarked on")?
 * I believe it's valid terminology, meaning he commanded the embarking, whereas "embarked on" could imply merely a passenger. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't say "the Earl Mountbatten", just "Earl Mountbatten" (if he had been the Earl of Mountbatten, then we'd use "the")
 * I think the source used "the", but then it was probably another Australian writer who didn't know any better... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In what form was Dowling's explanation to Mountbatten (as quoted) given, and when?
 * The source says "told" but gives it in a block quote similar to the way I present it, so I assume it was written correspondence; I used "explained" to hedge my bets... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "separation from families, lack of houses, over employment..." What does "over employment" mean in this sentence?
 * I've always understood the term to mean more job vacancies than people to fill them. I agree it sounds like another planet, but that's what he said... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The meaning is certainly far from clear; "over employment" could mean "about employment" (e.g. concerns over the employment situation) or "over-employment" (the opposite of under-employment), or perhaps something else, who knows? When something is unclear, it's best to avoid the direct quotation and use paraphrase, thus avoiding the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "over-employment" is reasonably clear given the context and phrasing, but will double-check the ref when I can to make sure I haven't added a space or left out a hyphen where I shouldn't have, as I agree "overemployment" or "over-employment" would be more obvious. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "no intervention eventuated" - a mouthful. I'd reword.
 * Agreed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Later life: "Succeeded as Chairman of COSC by Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, Dowling retired from the military on 27 May 1961." Sentence seems the wrong way round; surely he retired first and was then succeeded?
 * Fair enough -- checking the precise dates, the events did in fact occur the other way round and not the same day as I'd assumed. BTW, now that Scherger is the mentioned last in the first sentence of the para, pls just check if you think we should explicitly mention Dowling's name in the following sentence, e.g. "Though Dowling was keen to secure..."). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "an Australian planner": Inadequate description. Suggest follow the source and say "Australian tour planner".
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Final sentence: "Survived by his wife and five children, he was cremated" is a little close in format to the source, which reads: "Survived by his wife, two sons and three daughters, he died of a coronary occlusion on 15 April 1969 in Canberra Hospital and was cremated." It's an odd way of putting it, since his wife's and childen's survival has nothing to do with his being cremated. Also, are there no further details to be had, e.g. of a funeral date/place, a memorial service etc (check newspaper files)? He seems too distinguished to be dismissed from this earth so summarily.
 * Great minds... I always thought the article came to a bit of a sudden stop myself but, oddly enough, no online newspaper articles reported the funeral as having happened, only his obits mentioned where it was to take place -- so I've just taken as read that it did occur as planned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

These points should not be too difficult to fix. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many tks Brian -- you've picked up a lot of little things here and there that were niggling me as well, so it was good to get another opinion. Will progressively address the above over the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: I have one outstanding prose issue as indicated above; I don't consider it vital, but perhaps you'll consider. I'm also a bit surprised that no published obituary could be located that might enable us to round off the article a little more satisfactorily. Quibbles apart, this is an informative MilHist biography on an obviously worthy character of my grandfather's generation, and will make a creditable FA. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Brian, appreciate the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


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