Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frank Bladin


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank Bladin

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Yet another Air Marshal but, astonishingly for the RAAF in World War II, a non-controversial one...! He was never sacked and he didn't sack anyone himself — at least, in the immortal words from The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, no-one worth speaking of... Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * support  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments This is a great article which meets the criteria, but some bits need some tightening::
 * What's 'Educated to junior public level' mean? (eg, was this what's now year 10?)
 * I assume Year 10 but the source (High Fliers) just says "junior public level" – as opposed to "senior level" which applies to some of the other subjects.
 * Was he a member of the British Army, or was he posted to it from the Australian Army?
 * Attached, not member - clarified, tks.
 * The first para is the World War II section is rather long; I'd suggest that it be split at the point where he is appointed to the North Western Area
 * Ah, I think splitting at that point would result in an extremely short first para, plus I think it flows quite well as is and is about the same length as the second para.
 * No. 1 Wing's three Spitfire squadrons were transferred from Britain, not the Middle East, and if you're going to single out their greatest success their early problems should also be noted (though I don't think that this had much to do with Bladin)
 * Yep, it was a number of the pilots who'd come from ME, not the squadrons per se – altered. Will also add snippet re. early problematic action/publicity (the article doesn't live or die on this sort of thing but it adds context).
 * What position did Bladin hold in 2 TAF?
 * No precise position given, I'm afraid, but clarified somewhat.
 * What's meant by saying that No. 238 Group was an 'airborne formation'? (a term which normally means that its capable of parachuting out of planes)
 * This is the expression used in the sources; I understand it to mean a flying group delivering airborne troops.
 * There should probably be links to North Western Area Campaign and RAAF Base Glenbrook
 * Done Glenbrook; couldn't actually come up with a neat place to throw in the campaign link in the body of the article (it does appear in the infobox) so open to suggestions...
 * This is out of scope for an A class review, but a series of photos of the same person at Commons should be grouped into their own category rather then be placed in the increasingly-crowded Military History of Australia category. You can then add a link to that category from the article.
 * No prob with recategorising the commons pics.
 * Tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support My comments have largely been addressed - I still think that the first two paras in the World War II section are a bit long, but not by enough to not meet the A-class criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Comments :
 * I've conducted the GA review for the article (ongoing as of this writing) and would like to see the prose issues raised there addressed before supporting.
 * Done.
 * In both the "World War II" and "Post-war career" sections there is image sandwiching going on.
 * It's difficult to cater for every screen size/resolution; I check with both an old 4:3 screen and also a widescreen and can only see a slight overlap of one line of text in the latter configuration, in the Post War section. It doesn't seem enough to warrant losing one of the images...
 * I know that it would be impossible to be sure that every screen/browser/system setup looks good, but I use a Mac notebook with Safari and/or Firefox using a standard configuration (not at all an uncommon setup). Do what you will, but the Post-war section has overlap of about seven lines of body text. (By the way, the article could easily lose the first aircraft image and be none the worse for it. Yes, the aircraft were at that location because Bladin moved them there, but having that image in the article doesn't really expand our understanding of Bladin.) — Bellhalla (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When referring to the the military academy Bladin attended it's written (like this example from the lead) as … from the Royal Military College, Duntroon in 1920.. Should this have a comma after it since Duntroon is acting as a disambiguator of sorts? Compare with the similar construct of …at RAAF Headquarters, Melbourne, in… later in the article.
 * Probably needs comma in first (Duntroon) instance...
 * I'm not sure that the article benefits very much from the parenthetical comments on other officers' future ranks, as in the sentence in "World War II" beginning He also ordered an immediate …. (There are others, too.) They slow the reader, making the prose less clear.
 * Good point, it's a bit old-fashioned I suppose. I think where the subject has a WP article it's generally not necessary, so will remove in those instances (which is most or all).  The only one I'd prefer to leave is re. Frederick Scherger, since the "reshaping" we talk about him doing is mostly after the rank he had at the time he's mentioned - hope that makes sense.
 * The link to ad astra (phrase) in the sentence beginning He ran a property at Yass… in he "Later life" section is somewhat of an easter egg link. I fully expected it to be about Bladin's property rather than to an explanation of the phrase.
 * I think a link is useful because "Per Adua Ad Astra" is the motto of the RAAF. I'd like to have made the connection explicit in the article but no source I have actually notes that, so I refrained from doing so lest it be construed as OR (perhaps I was being too careful). I could clarify by linking "named Ad Astra" as opposed to just "Ad Astra" if you think that helps.
 * The RAAF motto connection was lost on me (and might be to others as well), but your suggestion for revising the link text will help. Part of my confusion came from the now-clarified "ran a property" phrase, which sounded like he operated a hotel or something. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't tell from the link to the Helson work (is this the same work?) if this is a peer-reviewed work or not. If it hasn't been peer-reviewed, I'm not sure if it meets WP:RS
 * Yes, the OCLC is the same work - tks for pointing that out, I didn't have an OCLC for it before under References. This is a doctoral thesis from the University of NSW, and I've used it in many articles that have gone through ACR and FAC, where it's always been accepted as a reliable source.
 * That's what I suspected, but I didn't want to just assume… — Bellhalla (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The multiple links to the Odgers work [notes 19–22] (in this version) are all to the same pdf file, despite the hint that they could be page images. At most only one should be linked, but since all of the Odgers cites are to that same chapter, it might be better to use the  and   fields in  in the "References" section. In any case, the links in individual notes OR a single chapter link in the "References" section needs a retrieval date.
 * I'd prefer to delink the additional instances, and have done so. Re. retrieval dates, pls see next response...
 * Similarly, retrieval dates are needed for the Gillison notes and/or the the entry in the "References" section, and the other works there that have external links.
 * Heh, hope I don't sound like a lawyer using precedent all the time but, again, I've argued previously at FAC that retrieval dates shouldn't be necessary (and are not strictly required by WP) where the link is simply to a book that has been copied online. Retrieval dates are certainly needed for web-only sources but in the case of the official World War II histories, the links are just a convenience and a retrieval date adds clutter where it isn't necessary.
 * I certainly won't insist, but for me, it comes down to verifiability: If I see a link in a note, my assumption is that the linked version was the one used. In the particular case of the Odgers work, where the pdf appears to be a scan of the printed book, it's not likely that it would change, but I think having a retrieval date is a benefit and not merely clutter. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for review, Bellhalla. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems. Changing to support with the proviso that you change the ad astra link text to your suggested wording. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.