Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Alan McNicoll


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan McNicoll

 * Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

After dwindling, half completed, in my sandbox for a couple of years I thought it was about time I returned to finish the article off. Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll had a distinguished career in the Royal Australian Navy, serving in the Second World War, as a liaison officer to the British nuclear tests off Western Australia in 1952, and captaining several ships, his career culminated with his appointment as Chief of Naval Staff in 1965. He later served as Australia's first ambassador to Turkey. The article just passed as GA, and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class. Many thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. One comment: while I, and almost certainly everybody else here, know what Operation Husky was, some readers may not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and copyedit/tweaks, Hawkeye. I have tweaked the sentence to clarify that Operation Husky and the invasion of Sicily were the same thing. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support -- I reviewed at GAN so no issue with structure, referencing, coverage and supporting materials, including image licensing. Copyedited then as usual so satisfied with prose as I left it; not sure about the almost-Biblical "from whence" added since then but happy to wait for Dan's opinion on that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Support  Comments - I could hardly fault this but for the following two bits:
 * ...to undertake the long course at...: I would suggest replacing "the" with "a".
 * McNicoll's decision to specialise as a torpedo officer led to him undertaking the long course in this field, and I think in this case it would leave it vague if I were to tweak it to "a". I am willing to tweak the sentence if you still think this is necessary, though. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * Thanks for the explanation, it is not an issue for me so leave it as it is. Zawed (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good otherwise. Zawed (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and igniting several depth charges on the sinking stern of King George V...: The King George V wasn't sinking, the Punjabi was.
 * I have substituted "sinking" for the more appropriate "damaged". Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * Unable to check dabs, external links or Earwig at this time due to tool server being down. Will come back to this later.
 * Images all have Alt Text (no action req'd).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Images are all licenced or have a valid fair use rat and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
 * A few duplicate links that should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * George Medal
 * Knighted
 * HMAS Australia
 * HMAS Kuttabul
 * I could have missed one, but I believe all of these are appropiately linked. The first three are linked once in the lead, once in the infobox, then again in the relevant section of the article. HMAS Australia is linked twice in the body of the article (first time under "Early life and career when he was briefly posted to the ship, and again under "Senior command" when he was CO of the ship), but I think this is appropiate given the amount of material in between. Let me know if you disagree, though. As for Kuttabul, I could only find it linked once... Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * George Medal and Knighted are actually linked twice in the lead (the post noms) - that said its not a big deal in my opinion. Kuttabul is also linked twice (once piped as HMAS Penguin). This should really be linked to HMAS Penguin (naval base) instead. Not too fussed about HMAS Australia so its up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Just for future reference, what tool are you using for repeat linking? Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * I use the User:Ucucha/duplinks script. Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I've installed the script now. Thanks. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * "On his graduation in 1926, McNicoll was posted to Britain for service and further training with the Royal Navy...", consider more simply: "On graduation in 1926, McNicoll was posted to Britain for service and further training with the Royal Navy..." (minor nitpick - suggestion only)
 * No problem with this. Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * "Completing a twelve-month stint...", seems informal to me. Consider instead: "Completing a twelve-month posting..." or something similar.
 * "McNicoll's stint with the Royal Navy...", consider "McNicoll's posting with the Royal Navy...", or "exchange" or "detachment". Again stint seems too informal to me.
 * I think in some cases it is fine to use "stint", but I do most certainly get your point. I think most of these were put in during the GA tweaks. Have substituted all. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * "...King George V took part in several Arctic convoys during the Second World War...", "during the Second World War" seems redundant to me and could probably be removed.
 * I do get your point, but I think it clarifies when. If I removed the mention and changed the sentence to just "As part of the Home Fleet, King George V took part in several Arctic convoys." I think it leaves it a little vague (as in, did the ship take part in the convoys during McNicoll's posting with the ship? During the war? During the ship's service?). Perhaps if I changed the wording slightly to maybe something like "throughout the Second World War" or "throughout the conflict"? I know it is pretty much the same, but maybe a slight tweaking will work better. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * "throughout the conflict" works for me, although it is under the "Second World War" heading so I do think the reader would probably assume that already. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One would think so, but you never know... Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * "From April–May 1942...", suggest "From April to May 1942..."
 * Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * Repetitive: "RA 51 was subsequently returned safely, though the German ships were not encountered.[18] King George V subsequently...", suggest removing one instance of "subsequently".
 * Thanks for spotting that. I have substituted the latter instance for "later". Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * Informality here: "He completed a year-long stint with the Admiralty..." (suggest rewording as above).
 * Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * "...a fortnight after the official cessation of hostilities...", "official" seems redundant here (suggestion only).
 * I think I only placed "official" in there since many people view the conflict as ending in August, as opposed to the officialy surrender and peace signing in September. You are right, though, and I have removed it. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * "...was subsequently made Captain (D)...", think "Captain (D)" should be "captain (D)" but I'm not 100% on this (see WP:JOBTITLES).
 * I could be wrong here, but I think the capitalisation is correct as it is an official position/appointment and aside from the rank of captain such as "Flag Officer Commanding HM Australian Fleet" is. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
 * See your point, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and taking the time to review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All my points have been addressed so I've added my spt. Really good work for what its worth. Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.