Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Harry Cobby


 * 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.

Arthur Henry Cobby

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating this article on the highest-scoring ace in Australian service of either war. Currently B-Class, recently expanded and believe it now meets the A-Class criteria. I feel it might have the legs for FA as well, so any and all comments welcome in that regard too. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Xatsmann (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Xatsmann. For info, if you believe an article has met the A-Class criteria, the usual practice for indicating that is by typing Support in bold (along with any points you'd like to make). Similarly, type Oppose in bold (with any reasons) if you feel it doesn't meet the criteria, or Comments in bold as a heading for discussion or proposing changes without supporting or opposing. Here's a recent review for example. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments - excellent article and a great read, just a few points: Support Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "earning the Distinguished Flying Cross and two bars, both of which were awarded the same day, as well as the Distinguished Service Order." - this sentence is potentially misleading. I know that Cobby's Bars to his DFC were announced in the London Gazette on the same day, but they were for two seperate actions and this sentence implies that they could have be earned on the same day. Also, it seems to be grouping the DFC & Two Bars as two decorations, not three.
 * Removed the two bars bit - complicates things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When did Cobby join the AFC?
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "two of whom he shot down on 21 March.[6] Both Albatros D.Vs, these were his first confirmed victories." - this appears a little awkward to me, as the information is virtually cut in half. I would recommend taking the latter half of that first sentence and joining it with the second sentence.
 * Fair enough, wasn't entirely happy with it myself - see what you think of it now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the final paragraph in the "World War I" section, I think it would be best if it was split at "By the end of his active service...". If this is done, perhaps consider moving all of the visual features done one paragraph each in this section as there is a sandwich between the first image and the infobox.
 * Have rejigged to four paras of roughly equal size, with the second clear of any image/quote boxes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if the first image was still moved down to the second paragraph, though, due to the sandwiching of the text. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - still might be some sandwiching on some screens but probably less than before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is preferred that times be in the twenty-four hour varient.
 * I tend to feel 24-hour time is a bit over the top when we're describing a non-combat situation - are you referring to a particular WP std? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I'm not sure if it is mentioned in the MoS, but it was brought up in one of my earlier Peer/A-Class reviews. I do think it is easier than adding "am" or "pm", but up to you. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I artfully got out of the 'pm' thing by saying 'in the afternoon' so... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the exact date known for his George Medal action?
 * Yep, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments This is yet another great article, but I think that it needs a little bit more work. Some suggestions you might want to consider are:
 * Australian Flying Corps should probably be linked in the introduction
 * Well it just redirects to RAAF since there's no separate AFC article as yet - I have considered creating one but there are so many articles out there that refer to AFC that would need to be checked and linked if one was written that I've never bothered linking it thus far - however I don't have a particular issue doing that if you think so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know how Cobby managed to leave the bank?
 * No idea I'm afraid - it took a bit of doing to discover why they were able to keep him so long in the first place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that Cobby spoke to the Governor of the Bank about the matter and threatened either to resign, or "jump under a train" if he wasn't permitted to join the AIF. That is at least what Cobby himself says on page 19 of his autobiography, High Adventure. I will include these details on the talk page if you would like. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many tks, Rupert - have to admit I tend to steer away from using autobiographies directly, preferring to employ info and quotes filtered through third party bios. Also, were I to use this tidbit from High Adventure, I should probably go the whole hog with it, and I think the article is reasonably well detailed as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs in the World War I section are rather long
 * Actioned in response to Bryce's comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "This action earned Cobby a recommendation for a second bar to his DFC, noting..." who noted this? (was this in the citation, the recommendation or somewhere else?)
 * The cited recommendation - will clarify in the text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say why Cobby was relieved of his command in May 1945, and skirts over the problems 1TAF experienced under his leadership (such as the poor planning ahead of the landing at Tarakan) - I think that this needs to be expanded
 * Well the perceived lack of control over his command because of the "mutiny" was effectively it. I didn't state that explicitly because I had the quote from Barry soon after but I can probably rejig a little and also mention the Tarakan planning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can add some material on Tarakan from Peter Stanley's excellent book on the battle (the poor planning of Cobby's headquarters, Bostock having to force him to reduce the RAAF landing force's bloated number of vehicles and Generals Moreshead and Berryman having a low opinion of Cobby). Everything in the book on Cobby is negative though, which is unfortunate but probably fair enough as it only covers the Battle of Tarakan, which was probably the lowest point in 1TAF's history. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean An Australian Tragedy - yep, I've seen and used it elsewhere in connection with Jones/Bostock but would have to go to the library to get it again, so pls feel free to add a bit. However, I've expanded and rejigged slightly that last para anyway so can I suggest just a line or two as context, if necessary? I say that because the mutiny alone was what led Jones (with pressure from Bostock and Kenney and, yes, Morshead) to replace him; planning for Tarakan was never given as a reason. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, will probably split that last WWII para now but will wait to see what if anything you'd like to add, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What did Cobby do between May 1945 and leaving the RAAF in 1946?
 * No info I'm afraid - you'd think the WW2 Nominal Roll would at least throw us a bone by correctly stating his posting at time of discharge but it says 1TAF...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I suspect that he wasn't given another posting and was placed on leave or equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most likely - either that or some desk job at RAAF HQ in Melbourne. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any material which sums up Cobby's performance in World War II which you can draw on? (eg, was the Morotai Mutiny an unfitting way to end his military career, or was it reflective of difficulties he had as a senior commander?) Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, thought about putting something either at the end of the WWII section or in the last section: Alan Stephens talks about a "personal and institutional tragedy that such a genuinely great figure in RAAF history should end his career in such circumstances" - what (and where) do you think? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The end of the World War II section would probably be the best place Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support all comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick, and tks for your additions from Stanley and the Oxford. I had considered using that quote about 'another victim' but felt it might open a can of worms in some reviewers' minds and require background of the Jones-Bostock feud, etc - however happy to leave it and see how it goes. Also re. tense, I agree the Oxford is a going concern but simply preferred to follow the same tense I'd employed for the quote from Stephens' book ('described') which is also still in print. Again, happy to leave as is... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - an excellent article that is well written and well researched and seems to meet the criteria. Well done, Ian. I have added some information on the talk page that you might like to add, but my support is not dependent upon that. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pls see earlier reply, and tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 20 April 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.