Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Bostock

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

---

William Bostock

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Yep, nominating this for FA because I think it meets the criteria. Now that the obvious part's out of the way, for those who prefer something beyond the usual nomination spiel, read on... From its inception in 1921 until the end of World War II, the history of the RAAF was often the story of two great rivalries at its highest echelons, between Richard Williams and Stanley Goble from 1921 to 1939, and between George Jones and William Bostock from 1942 to 1945. Three of these chaps – Williams, Goble and Jones – are already the subjects of FA-class articles; I’d like now to get the last of the four to the same level with this FAC for William Bostock, which is currently GA, and A-Class on the MILHIST project where it was also peer reviewed. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I supported this article during it's A-Class Review and found no concerns regarding the criteria then, nor do I now with the FA criteria. This is a very well written, sourced and comprehensive article that merits the Featured star. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: all images check out fine; their copyrights have expired and are in the public domain by Australian law. Jappalang (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an outstanding article which meets all the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment fn 31-- page not found. This dead link needs to be fixed. Showtime2009 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• MoS attention needes, sample edits left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh, I don't doubt that the changes you're asking for are according to Hoyle (I mean MoS) but it's interesting that none of these were picked up in any of my previous FACs (e.g. those mentioned above) that used identical style conventions - anyway, should be done and we know for next time...! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Web sources need last access dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Noted (and not ignored) but I think the only refs appearing on the web that don't have retrieval dates are books or papers, which just happen to have been made available on the web, i.e. not 'web sources' per se. I'll re-familiarise myself with the precise conventions of the policy unless someone wants to clarify it for me, since those access dates add to the clutter a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Yep, looking over WP:References, I see that "For web-only sources you should also include a "Retrieved on" date in case the webpage changes in future". None of the works in the References section are web-only, so is there something I've missed elsewhere, maybe something that's changed in the month since my last FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Not required by guideline, but on the other hand, it doesn't hurt to throw them in. Your choice, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (You do need the last access dates as noted by Dabomb above) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarify here... you need them for web-only sources. It's nice to have them for books hosted on the web, mainly so you can track them down if they move the pages, but they aren't required per se. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tks Sandy, Ealdgyth. In that case I'd prefer to leave as is for consistency with other articles in this series. However, I realise now I may have contributed to any confusion by using the Cite Web template for a couple of those under References. I'll change them to something more appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Only one issue: the names of the Helson and Horner publications should not be both italicized and enclosed in quote marks. Altogether very nicely done; glad to come across it here after missing it at MilHist A-class. Maralia (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tks for that, Maralia. Re. the Helson and Horner pubs, I certainly agree with you. As with songs and album names, or short stories and novels, I think you either use quote marks (for short works) or italics (for longer ones) but not both. However these works seem to classify as 'papers' and the Cite Paper template assigns both italics and quotes to the titles automatically. Perhaps we should get ourselves over to the relevant template's talk page and question the rationale for that (I confess some pragmatism - or laziness - on this point up till now)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, raised the question here - not the first time it's been asked on the template talk page either...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support But I have some remarks to prove that I read it. :)

• Tks Hawkeye - and I have some responses to prove that I don't stop reading after I see the 'S' word, welcome as it is... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Whilst there he was admonished by the college's commandant," How about naming (or at least linking to) him? He does have a page. (Okay, it's a stub.)

• My source doesn't name the guy so I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Air Commodore Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt. Mostly this is just my personal preference for naming names. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• "possibly expecting that his (Bostock's) new role" Why not just say "possibly expecting that Bostock's new role"?

• Well, it just reads better to me as is and I think it's an accepted form of words... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Together with a naval barrage, this resulted in a "scene of indescribable ruin" on the battlefield, and allowed seventeen waves of troops to disembark their landing craft without loss." You make it sound like everyone thought that this was a good idea.

• I also considered "but allowed seventeen waves of troops..." to qualify it a bit and am happy to substitute that if you think it's an improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As on Cebu and Tarakan, the land forces took shameless advantage of the fact that they knew that the Japanese doctrine was not to defend the beaches. Wing Commander Dale was pretty upset, considering that he had to repair the damage done, and complained to Jones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Bostock had control of the USAAF Fifth and Thirteenth Air Forces, as well as 1TAF, during Operation Oboe One" Quite a story behind that.

• No doubt, but is this the place to get into that? I mean if you have suggestions for a line (and a citation) or two, happy to consider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. macArthur cut out LHQ by arguing that one commander (Morshead) should be in charge. Blamey then turned the tables on him by applying this principle to the air force. The result was that Bostock became overall air commander. Such a large American force under an Australian officer is notable — and the article is quite right to draw attention to this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• "During parliamentary debates in 1951 and again in 1957, Bostock spoke for "an integrated defence force with a single minister", advocating amalgamation of the four separate Departments of Defence, Air, Navy and Army into one Department of Defence, headed by the Minister for Defence. He further proposed that..." You make it sound like it was all Bostock's idea. The 1957 debate was in response to the Morshead report. And the 1973 re-organisation was possible because the Liberal party had lost office.

• You say the 1957 debate was in response to the Morshead report, but Bostock first talked about it in 1951. Also, whether he originated the idea or not, I think that saying he "spoke for" or "advocated" it is still accurate. However, if you think "proposed" is giving him too much credit I'd be happy to look at an alternative there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say "supported", although Bostock advocated it strongly in 1951. What is interesting is that the experience of combined operations in Borneo convinced all three services — even the RAAF — that a more unified ADF was a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is. No changes required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.