Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/William Anderson (RAAF officer)


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

William Anderson (RAAF officer)

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Returning after a short break from ACRs, I present one of the founding members of the RAAF. Among Bill Anderson's claims to fame: sharing in the first "kill" credited to No. 3 Squadron of the Australian Flying Corps in World War I; receiving the first Distinguished Flying Cross awarded to an Australian; and serving the shortest term as Chief of the Air Staff (one month)...! Although third in seniority to Dicky Williams and Jimmy Goble for most of his career, Anderson never made as much of an impact on the RAAF's development. He appears to have been well liked but there’s the suspicion that he gained his promotions and commands more through convenience and length of tenure than ability and sound judgement (not the first such officer, nor the last, I hear you cry!). This is currently GA, and I have no plans to take it to FAC at this stage because, while I believe his military career is well covered, information on anything he did afterwards is scant indeed. Anyway, hope you enjoy his tale... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: up to your usual standard, Ian. I made a couple of minor tweaks, but otherwise couldn't see much wrong with it. There are no dab links, the ext links all work, alt text is present. The article is well referenced and well written in my opinion. The images look appropriately licenced to me, although others may disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, appreciate your time! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To my inexperienced eye, this looks really good. I did add a few links to the article and corrected another.  I didn't add the link to Air Chief Marshal as I wasn't sure whether it should be to the RAAF rank or the RAF rank since Burnett was on secondment.  A couple of (minor) things:
 * I tend not to link ranks before linked people because I don't especially like different links one after the other, and if someone follows the person link they'll find the rank linked in there somewhere. However I'm not especially fussed about it at A-Class level. Re. Burnett, if you were to link his rank of air chief marshal it'd be the RAF one as he was always an RAF officer even while CAS of the RAAF. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Williams and Cole are both mentioned in the WWII section, having been referred to earlier. Because of the difference in ranks from their first mention in the article, to me it is not immediately apparent they are the same individuals (particularly for Cole whose first mention is as a F/L; Williams is mentioned a second time prior to the WWII section as being a WC so one gets the idea he is a senior officer anyway).
 * Fair enough, are you suggesting re-linking the guys later?
 * probably the easier option rather than adding clarifying sentences.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Also in the WWII section, 2nd para, 3rd sentence - "its complement also included..." Perhaps that should be aircraft complement?
 * That's fair too, the only reason I didn't use "aircraft complement" is that I say "army cooperation aircraft" later in the sentence and don't like repeating words...
 * How about...;its responsibilities also required the use of fighters...... Zawed (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Came up with something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to support otherwise. Zawed (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The changes look good, Ian. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Images all have Alt Text (no action required).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * The images used are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * I've read through the article word for word and can find no issues preventing its promotion; it is well-written, covers the topic in sufficient detail and is MOS compliant. IMO it meets the ACR criteria, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks as always for your review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 19 May 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.