Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Lerew


 * 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) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

John Lerew

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating this article for A-Class review because, after being laid low for a while, it's time to get back into it...! Known for his classic comeback to an ill-conceived order from RAAF Headquarters during the Battle of Rabaul, John Lerew was also important for his contributions to flying safety within the Air Force and in the civil aviation world, areas 'pon which I’ve significantly expanded since this article was first assessed as B-Class. Like to think it also has the legs for FA-Class, so any recommendations on that front would also be appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment(s) No problems reported with disambig links. One external linked flagged as suspicious, please check and advise. Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated sus url... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Well written, referenced, and illustrated. Good work. I have one question, though. Is the capitalisation of ranks correct? My understanding is that where a rank is being used as a title, e.g. Group Captain Lerew it is capitalised, but where it is just being used by itself such as in Lerew was a group captain, that it is not capitalised. It's just a small thing and I might be wrong. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, then again, you might be right...! What you say is definitely a school of thought and some editors abide by it consistently, whereas I for one capitalise ranks consistently in all articles in which I have major involvement. Like "World War II" vs "Second World War", I don't think there's an agreed standard, at least not in MILHIST, except that things should be consistent within an article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, MOS:CAPS has a recommendation/"general rule" on this, although I do agree consistency in an article is more important. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good, except I would recommend expanding the later life bit. In the lead, you imply that he was extremely influential in Civilian Life, but in the main body that section seems rather short compared to that about his military career. – Joe   N  21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks Joe. May be more what's in the lead that needs to be brought in line with the later work details rather than the other way round - wasn't really happy with the wording in the first sentence anyway, it seemed a little more than was apparent from the details, so have toned down. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 22 July 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.