Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hector Waller


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

Article promoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hector Waller

 * ''Nominator(s): Ian Rose 15:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a pattern here...? First I present for your consideration at ACR a non-Australian ace, then I give you a non-flying RAAF officer, now it’s a Royal Australian Navy captain -- in the immortal words of Pink Floyd, "Wot's... uh, the deal? Well, no, haven’t forsaken the RAAF flyboys, in fact my latest FAC is another of them, but as far as this nom goes I’ve long observed (sometimes out loud) that while Australian military pilots are, if I say so myself, well served in terms of quality WP bios, as are Australian soldiers thanks to Hawkeye and also Bryce Abraham, the same can’t be said for RAN personnel. So putting my time where my mouth is, this is one of the Navy’s legendary commanders, who earned the admiration of Admiral Cunningham during the North Africa campaign and who, had he not been lost with his cruiser HMAS Perth in the Pacific during the Battle of Sunda Strait, might have challenged John Collins as the RAN’s pre-eminent officer of the post-war period. The submarine HMAS Waller was named in his honour.

The article passed its GA review yesterday, and I'd like to acknowledge the work of Janggeom, who improved this from a stub to something pretty close to B-Class before I expanded it recently. I think it has the legs for FA, so any comments in that regard are welcome too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: great to see this article get attention. I have a couple of comments/suggestions:
 * according to the featured article tools, there are no dab links and ext links work (no action required);
 * images have alt text (no action required);
 * images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * the duplicate link checker reports a few potential examples of overlink in the article: Distinguished Service Order, Medal bar, HMAS Cerberus (naval base);
 * Yep, I think those can be justified 'cos the decorations are generally linked as post-noms as well as when spelt out in the lead and/or main body, plus Cerberus is the link for both itself and Flinders Naval Depot.
 * "formal consideration for the award of the Victoria Cross". My understanding is that the consideration is being made for the award of the new version of the award, the Victoria Cross for Australia. I might be wrong, though;
 * I've seen a couple of news reports mention the VC, the VC for Australia, and "other forms of recognition" as possibilities -- thought that was a bit complicated for this bio and the news report I cited did only mention VC so...
 * Yes, seems fair. I've read the same, so its all a bit confusing. To be honest, I can't see that the VC is a possibility. The Queen has said on many occasions that she wants to honour her father's stance that there should be no retrospective VCs for the Second World War now, as illustrated by Haane Manahi in New Zealand. The VC for Australia, however, might be a possibility. As an aside, I still think they should be reviewing LT Mark Moloney for his actions in Operation Coburg, but what do I know? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "In November 1937 Waller was given his first command at sea, the RN destroyer HMS Brazen". It might be asking too much of a biography, and if so please say so, but I wonder at the mechanisms by which a RAN officer was appointed to command a RN ship. Was this common at the time, was there a formal agreement, etc. (Sorry, I'm talking very clearly as a landlubber here);
 * Heh, the RN and RAN had so many exchange postings in those days they almost seemed like the one organisation (same with RAF and RAAF). I'll see if I can add something along the lines you suggest before sending to FAC, at least.
 * True. I'm seeing the same with the light horse regiments/brigades I'm working on. We have South Africans commanding Australians. Australians commanding French and New Zealanders, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "monitored progress of the Spanish Civil War, duty that included protection of British merchant vessels and rescuing the crews of sinking ships". My understanding is that there was a blockade to enforce at this time, do you know if this was part of Brazen's duties at this time?
 * I think you're right about the blockade but my source didn't mention it specifically re. Brazen.
 * "nicknamed the 'Scrap Iron Flotilla' ". I think that the MOS asks for double quotes here (and the earlier example in the lead);
 * Heh, I thought I did have it as double quotes the first time but perhaps not. I believe you can drop them for a nickname after the first use but not fussed either way -- tks Janggeom for actioning this one.
 * "of the Collins class submarines to..." I think it should be "Collins-class submarines" (very minor point, obviously);
 * Actioned by Janggeom.
 * "named by the Australian government for consideration as possible recipients of the Victoria Cross for extreme valour in combat". Maybe add "as part of a review by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal". AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Tks for your review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Hope to see this at FAC sometime. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support This is a very good biography which meets the A class criteria. I have the following comments and suggestions for further improvements though:
 * I don't think that naval captains are usually called 'senior officers'
 * Have you heard that about naval captains specifically? I ask because my understandng is that technically major / squadron leader / lieutenant commander and above are senior officers, while captain / flight lieutenant / lieutenant and below are junior officers. That said, I tend only to use the expression "senor officer" in WP for colonel / group captain / captain, and "senor commander" for general, air or flag officers.
 * No, not specifically. I was more thinking about the largish number of ranks which are above captain. I don't think that colonels are necessarily 'senior officers' either, but I'm not really all that good with the lingo around this (as a total aside, I once rang up Defence as part of a research project at work and ended up speaking with a colonel who said that he literally shared a desk at Russell Offices with the colonel I needed to speak to... )
 * The photo of HMS Brazen is miss-captioned 'HMAS Brazen'
 * Oops, actioned by Janggeom.
 * Was Waller back in Australia when WW2 broke out?
 * Assuming he was in country at the time he was appointed Stuart's captain, then yes, but I'll see if I can confirm...
 * "Waller was appointed to command HMAS Stuart, taking charge of a group of four other obsolete ex-RN destroyers" - was he both the captain of this ship and the commander of whatever unit this was? (a flotilla, I presume). If so this should be stated explicitly.
 * Explicitly state he was ship's captain as well as flotilla commander? Hmm, thought that was pretty clear but can make it more so... ;-)
 * You could add a little bit extra on Perth's pre-Pacific war activities in late 1940 using the RAN's history of the ship:
 * Hokay.
 * I might be mistaken, but I think that Waller commanded the Perth and Houston group as he was the more senior of the two captains.
 * That's correct, again I can make that clearer.
 * You could quote Waller's ADB entry's statement that he was "the outstanding officer of his generation"
 * Heh, I thought it might be in danger of looking a bit hagiographic adding that, but I trust your instincts... ;-)
 * Waller Cresent (and its offshoot Waller Place) in Campbell, ACT are also named for Waller:
 * Tks, actioned by Janggeom.
 * Given that you're progressing to people who served at lower and lower altitudes, will Henry Hugh Gordon Stoker be your next project? (or maybe one of the Army officers who took part in mining operations in World War I!) ;)
 * As Le Chiffre said to Bond before using the latter's balls for target practice, "You are a funny man...!" Actually not that outrageous a suggestion, my next major article is also Navy, Roy Dowling, and I do owe myself an army bio FA somewhere down the track to emulate Bryce's triple header of Raymond Brownell, Otto Becher and Henry Wells...
 * I've spot checked the ADB entry and Gill for close paraphrasing and accuracy. While this was generally fine, I have the following comments:
 * "A few months later, in January 1942, the ship was assigned to American-British-Dutch-Australian Command to help defend the Dutch East Indies." - this is sourced to Gill, pp. 616-622, but is actually on pages 579-580. You could also use this to provide further details of the ship's activities (eg, that she departed Australian waters in February escorting a convoy to the NEI)
 * More generally, the range of page numbers used in reference 37 (Gill, pp. 616-622) is probably too broad given that this reference is used three times. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Heh, that's probably the most comments I've ever received with a support but I guess I'll action them... ;-) Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but based on prior experience I know that you'll take into account my sensible suggestions and point out the problems with the dumb ones ;) Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Those many sensible suggestions should now be more-or-less incorporated. I even found out that the author of his ADB entry is a rear admiral with his own WP article -- I doubt that I would've gone looking for him if you hadn't pushed for inclusion of his "outstanding officer" quote, so tks again... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as I see no reason not to. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, piling on... Tks Jim (for others, Jim reviewed at GAN). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright check All images have acceptable licences, but File:Hector Waller AWM 005002-13.jpg and File:HMAS Perth (AWM 301166).jpg would benefit from using the Information template to arrange the information (the template exists in Commons as well, with the same fields). The summary of the first photo is just "Hector Waller", a pair more words would be better. Of course, none of this is a problem for the nomination, just something that may be better. Cambalachero (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just quick note to say I'll check on these when I have a bit more time -- tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Tks for alerting me to the portrait in particular, as the supposed date of the photo had been miscronstrued from the source file description. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - some very minor comments
 * "...Promoted to lieutenant in March 1921...", should lietuenant be wikilinked to Lieutenant (navy) instead?
 * Good call, tks.
 * "Waller earned the personal admiration of Admiral Cunningham...", generally I believe rank should be removed a second instance per WP:SURNAME. Is there a reason you have chosen this construction here?
 * It was deliberate. I just feel that when you reintroduce a figure who hasn't been mentioned in a while it's worth jogging the reader's memory a bit...
 * "Admiral Cunningham described Waller's loss...", as above.
 * As above... ;-)
 * Regardless, another fine addition to the project. As ever well done (for what its worth). Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many tks mate, and your "well done" is worth stacks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Cheers Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.