Nominating this article as it seems to meet the criteria. Best known for his classic comeback to an ill-conceived order from higher command during the Battle of Rabaul in 1942, John Lerew was also notable for his contributions to flying safety in the Air Force and to the world of civil aviation. Recently listed GA-Class, also A-Class on the MILHIST project and others. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Support This is a great article about an interesting airman and meets the FA criteria. I would suggest that you go through the article again to tweak material which has been written in a passive voice though. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Tks mate - tweaked a couple but left others where I think it helped to mix up the expression a bit. More than happy for you to point out or modify any other instances you think should be altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Many tks for those mods, Nick - another pair of eyes never hurts...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems:
Alt text for one tiny image is missing (see "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page). It's a purely decorative image, so I suggest adding "|link=" as per WP:ALT #When to specify.
Two images have exactly the same alt text "Single-engined military monoplane in flight". I suggest adding a brief summary to the alt text of visual details where these images differ. Likewise for the twin-engined.
The first portrait should have alt text that tells us a bit more what he looked like; currently the visually impaired reader will be clueless about appearance. The 2nd portrait's alt text can assume the reader has seen the first portrait's alt text, but should give a significant detail or two as to how this portrait differs. (Is it the stripes on his sleeves? Inquiring minds want to know....)
Heh, tks mate, as with Nick's prodding earlier, making one re-think a few things that seemed cut-and-dried is a big part of what a review's about - see what you think now. BTW, you were right the first time about the last image, essentially same info as the first so used "link=". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that fixed the problem with the 1st portrait and the airplanes. The tiny little image still needs a link=, I expect. And the 2nd portrait is missing alt text entirely; I expect it really needs alt text rather than a link= as it cannot be purely decorative, surely. To see all this, it might help to visit the "alt text" link in the toolbox at the upper right corner of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha, we were talking at cross-purposes there. I missed entirely the little flag image you were referring to; when you said something was missing alt text entirely I thought you meant the last portrait, which was missing alt text after my first pass at it before FAC, due to a syntax error on my part. Anyway, there is in fact one minor diff between the two portaits in the type of uniform and placement of the Group Captain's stripes, so put that in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The resulting alt text looks good. Thanks for doing this so quickly. Eubulides (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The prose looks good on a preliminary scan through, Ian. I'll return and edit if necessary. I enlarged some of the pics, given their level of visual detail and the change in the guideline at MoS. Can you check whether they're too big? They were, IMO, decidly too small. Tony(talk) 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I've inserted spaces after the page abbr. "p./pp." Tony(talk) 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Tks for ce/review Tony. I share your pref for larger-than-thumbnail images where appropriate so have no prob with these bigger renditions of the pics but am happy to hear other opinions. I'm aware of the discussion going on at FAC talk page on this subject, though I hadn't bought in as yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Support - an excellent article, I have only three minor comments that shouldn't hold up my support of the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"and the original name Le Roux" - is there a word missing here?
I'm not a fan of using an article subject's christian name, as in "John was" - If you can't use the surname for disambiguation reasons then I recommend using the whole name, i.e. "John Lerew was".
"his crew were believed killed" - do you mean just at the time, or that they are still considered to have died in the crash today?
Tks Jacky - actioned all suggestions (crew was only "believed killed" at the time but this was confirmed subsequently so "died" is simpler here...). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments - Pretty much there.
I've done some light copyediting (there wasn't much to do). Besides removing a few extraneous words, I increased the use of pronouns, mostly at the expense of Lerew's name, which I found somewhat overused. Feel free to revert anything you find unhelpful.
"Lerew held various base commands including RAAF Station Townsville, Nowra in New South Wales..." I can't make out exactly what this means. Was RAAF Station Townsville in Nowra? If so, isn't it redundant to say that it was in NSW? If you feel the need to indicate that Nowra is in NSW, wouldn't "Nowra, New South Wales" be a more conventional way of doing so?
Just wanted to clearly distinguish the three bases: Townsville; Nowra; Batchelor. Happy to take suggestions...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked a little - could forego the "in" if you think that looks better while still indicating three bases/locations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"Promoted Group Captain..." Should the word "to" be in there, or is this a standard way of describing these things in military parlance?
Believe this is acceptable militarise, unless anyone wishes to correct me on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"Lerew received credit for a number of ICAO's resolutions over the next decade..." "Resolution" strikes me as an odd choice of words here. Would "accomplishments" be better, or am I missing something?
I think "resolutions" could be argued but agree "accomplishments" is more straightforward and have altered accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll support once these decidedly minor points are addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Tks for your review/ce Steve. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Support - My concerns, to the extent that they existed, have been addressed to my satisfaction. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Image review - The description, categories, and author for commons:File:Wirraway (AWM AC0141).jpg all need to be fixed. Other than that, the images could probably be categorized a bit more, but nothing really that major. Do you think you could take care of that? Thanks, NW(Talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Tks for review mate - all updated now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.