Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexander Pentland/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 02:26, 7 February 2010 [1].

Alexander Pentland[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Nominating another aviation bio that I think meets the FA criteria, focussing on one of Australia's top-scoring aces of World War I, a great character in the annals of civil as well as military flying. Currently GA, plus A-Class at the MilHist project - any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason to link "Australian"? It's bunched up with six linked words out of seven in a row. Please see WP:LINK.
  • The title is "The King's School", so "The" should be blue too, I guess. Looks funny without. I had the misfortune to be interned there for six years, so I should know.
  • Could you remove "reading"?
  • MilHist of Australia during WWII is odd with a pipe "war was declared".
  • I think "radar" is a common term.

Looks good on a quick run through. Tony (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for review, Tony. Agree with and actioned all except the WWII link/pipe, which still makes sense to me as we're talking about Australia's declaration of war - but happy to hear other comments... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Dabs and alt text look good. A couple of external links timed out, but the others looked good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Storm. Yeah, those buggers always seem to time out with the checker but they're fine when you follow the link in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- Well--organized, illustrated, laid-out and written. (I have not checked images or sources.) Some copyediting suggestions:

  • Lede:
    • 1st paragraph, 3d sentence: In this summary it is unnecessary to name those who scored higher.
      • Not strictly necessary, and one reviewer at MilHist ACR did ask the same question. My response is that there may also be those who'd like to know the others first up, seeing as he was close to 'the top' and they all have articles, plus, pragmatically, it was a bit more info to help 'even up' the lead paragraph lengths (just an aesthetic consideration).
    • 2d paragraph, 1st sentence: Consider splitting this up. Two different subjects.
      • Done.
  • World War I:
    • 1st paragraph, 3d sentence: What is a "sewage farm"? Is it a sewage pond?
      • Believe so - can alter if you think the latter's more common.
    • 2d paragraph: "deployed to new unit" Are we back in France now? Keep us oriented. What kind of convoy was stopped? Military cross "promulgated" in London Gazette: Is this the correct usage? Or was it announced in Gazette?
      • First two points actioned; "promulgated" seems to be fairly common - "announced" is okay too I guess...
  • Between the wars:
    • 1st paragraph: "Though the fledgling Air Force had the air of a flying club" It took me three readings to realize how "air" was used in it the second appearance. The sentence is somewhat long-- can it be split or rephrased?
      • Changed "air" to "atmosphere"; split long sentence.
  • World War II and later life:
    • last sentence: He was survived by his daughter; his funeral was not.
      • Quite right - thanks!
An interesting read, and his personality comes through. Kablammo (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear, Kablammo; thank you for the review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but why is "Jerry" used twice in the general prose? It's his nickname but not a common name. Surely eg, writing "Thorpey" all over Ian Thorpe's article would make it a too affectionate/POV and detract from its encyclopedicity, especially when describing his death, it makes it sound like a guy talking about his pet dog or something YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks for support but I don't think comparing "Jerry" to "Thorpey" is really fair. He was always called Jerry and never Alexander by the look of it, that's what comes across in his biography and in the entries in the various aces books. If you think it'd be clearer, I could change nicknamed "Jerry" to commonly known as "Jerry" or something similar on first mention under Early Life... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if his common name is Jerry, shouldn't the article moved to Jerry Alexander then? We don't list Tony Abbott under "Anthony" or Steve Waugh as "Stephen". I also noticed that you piped Arthur Henry Cobby as "Harry Cobby" ; if he was commonly called Harry why isn't the article there, same as for Prince Harry of Wales rather than Prince Henry YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean move to Jerry Pentland? Well maybe it should be, I didn't create either the Cobby or Pentland articles, just piled on the content and didn't fuss too much about what was the 'perfect' name to use for the article; have to admit that sort of thing can get to be like the number of angels on the head of a pin for me... On the other hand I created a redirect for Jerry Pentland, as you see, and would've created one for Harry Cobby if Grant65 hadn't already. Again I don't think the comparisons are quite apt - the examples you give are contemporary and far better known to the average person than Cobby, let alone Pentland, so their article names are more cut and dried. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this can be sorted off-FAC, since both are reasonable and experienced editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reckon so...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:MOSNUM calls for digits here; YMMV:

These would be his last victories; his grand total of twenty-three included eleven destroyed, one of which was shared, and twelve out of control, three of them shared.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always go back to the first bit under the Numbers heading, where it says 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 concert with the clause Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs - plumping for the latter option of course... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alexander_Pentland/archive1&oldid=1138454148"