Nominating this article on another Australian Flying Corps veteran and senior officer in the RAAF - in the mold of Richard Williams, Henry Cobby, Frank McNamara, and so on. Currently GA-Class, as well as A-Class on the Military History, Aviation, and Australia wikiprojects. Since passing those milestones, have added some further detail here and there and sorted out a niggling question on his victory claims in World War I (even added alt text to the pictures after finding out about that requirement!) so believe ready for FA-Class... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is in good shape and certainly very close to FA quality.
He seems to have transferred to the RAAF and then become one of its original officers when it was formed. How did he transfer to it if it didn't yet exist?
"Though he later recorded that it involved "twenty months' hard work, without pay ... with loads of scurrilous and other criticism", provision of the RAAF's radio facilities and technicians was considered a boon for contestants." I can't quite figure out what this sentence is trying to say.
Are we sure that Who's Who in Australia is a RS? Most Who's Whos are considered not to be, I believe.
First I've heard of Who's Who being a questionable source, and I've used it in most of my recent A/FA-Class noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Steve, and the copyedits - while I tweaked a couple, I think they've certainly improved the prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that mate. I do generally re-link items that are in the intro the first time they recur in the main body, as well as in the infobox, but hopefully nothing's linked more often than that (if so, let me know or feel free to de-link). Also re. numbers, I tend to consistently go with the MOS clause "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred"; in military articles there are so many unit numbers on top of the date figures that I prefer words where strictly within MOS guidelines. Again, if I haven't applied that consistently then feel free to rub my nose in it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a well written, well presented and comprehensive article. My only niggle is that there is inconsistency in the succession boxes, with one containing ranks and the other not. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys - yeah Bryce, another succession box aficionado added that one without including the ranks of these guys that I'd never heard of - occurred to me I might just know where to find the missing info and so it's proved - both temporary AVMs... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
