Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frank Headlam
- 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) 11:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Headlam[edit]
Another RAAF 2-star for your review. Although not in the first rank of Air Force personalities, Headlam did have a long and interesting career, seeing service in three South-East Asian conflicts (four if you count the brief time he spent in Vietnam preparing for Australia’s first Huey deployment to the war). This just passed GAN (tks Zawed) and I think it might have the legs for FAC as well, so feel free to comment on that possibility. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: looks good, as usual. I saw this earlier when it was at B-class assessment. Just a few points below:
- the images seem appropriately licenced and alt text is present;
- coverage is good and the article is well referenced with WP:RS;
- no duplicate or dab links detected;
- slighly inconsistent punctuation: "In April 1941 he..." v "In November 1950, Headlam..."
- Done.
- "Against the wishes of his parents he joined the Royal Australian Air Force" --> is there anything written about what they wanted him to do instead?
- 'Fraid not.
- No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Fraid not.
- "...engaged in convoy escort and maritime reconnaissance duties" --> Where? Perhaps "...along the eastern seaboard"?
- Tweaked.
- "On 7 December, this detachment..." (was this before or after the Pearl Harbor attack / Malayan invasion?) If after, perhaps removed the piped link as just say that? For instance, "On 7 December, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor..." AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only linked 7 Dec to Pearl Harbor for info, not to suggest a direct connection, as the indications are that the sqn was scheduled to move on that date anyway. I've removed the link, although I can put it back if you don't think it's a problem. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I think it implies a connection, but I'll leave it up to you. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. The article looks great regardless. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only linked 7 Dec to Pearl Harbor for info, not to suggest a direct connection, as the indications are that the sqn was scheduled to move on that date anyway. I've removed the link, although I can put it back if you don't think it's a problem. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport- Dabs checked above (no action req'd).
- External links check out [1] (no action req'd).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
- Images review completed above (no action req'd).
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [2] (no action req'd).
- No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
- Missing definite article here I think: "No larger than a flight according to the official history of the pre-war RAAF, Seaplane Squadron was part of No. 1 FTS...", consider instead: "No larger than a flight according to the official history of the pre-war RAAF, the Seaplane Squadron was part of No. 1 FTS.
- Heh, the Air Force often refers to unnumbered units without the definite article, and the source in this case follows that rule...
- Agree it is fairly common in most service writing. Its only that you use it first sentence of the paragraph. Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, the Air Force often refers to unnumbered units without the definite article, and the source in this case follows that rule...
- Agree with ARs point about linking 7 Dec, doesn't seem quite right to me.
- Fair enough. Per above, the link's gone.
- Suggest the categorization be refined a little. Currently have him in "People from Tasmania", think would be more precise if it was "People from Launceston, Tasmania" instead.
- Will do, tks.
- Otherwise fine as usual. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice work with this Ian. The article notes that Headlam was involved in planning the deployment of No. 9 Squadron to Vietnam, but doesn't note the major problems with the unit's combat readiness (from memory, the official history states that it was not ready for war during its first months of service). I'd suggest noting this, as well as any role Headlam would have had. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2013 (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.