Jump to content

Talk:Stanley Goble

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleStanley Goble is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 9, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 9, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 6, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 6, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Wing Commander Stanley Goble and Flying Officer Ivor McIntyre, piloting a single-engined seaplane (pictured), became the first men to circumnavigate Australia by air in 1924?
Current status: Featured article

Rank on return to Australia

[edit]

I've been adding some referencing to the London Gazette to fill out some more detail on decorations and promotions. I've noticed this entry: "No. 32009". The London Gazette. 6 August 1920. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

which seems to contradict the info currently in the article that he went to Australia as Lieutenant Colonel, and only on creation of the Air Board received the rank of Wing Commander. David Underdown (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, however both McArthy (ADB) and Alan Stephens (RAAF historian) say Goble was a Lt Col on return to Oz and Stephens explicitly says he and Williams became Wg Cdrs only on est. of the permanent Air Board in 1920. I'll take another look at everything however when I get a minute in the next day or so. Tks for all your additions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I later found this one "No. 31332". The London Gazette. 9 May 1919. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), from which it appears he did initially go there as an (acting) Lieutenant-Colonel (though it would have been nice if it was more specific about the "special employment". Looking at Major (United Kingdom), it appears the RAF used army-style ranks until 1919-07-31, adopting (essentially) the current rank structure on 1919-08-01 (which potentially fits with the first reference I talked about here), and it perhaps noteworthy he was an honorary, rather than acting Wing Commander. The circle can perhaps be squared if the rank only became substantive with the creation of the air board, but since he had effectively traded in his RAF commmission for an RAAF one at that stage, no notification appears in the London Gazette, and I don't know if there was an equivalent Australian publication at the time (and without such confirmation we're veering into Original Research, I'm not sure if the status of the London Gazette as primary or secondary source has been discussed within Wikipedia in any case). David Underdown (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley Goble/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I have elected to review this article under the Good article criteria and should have any comments posted up within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note I have previously edited this page, however I have not made any significant contributions. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I have now completed reviewing this article against the criteria, and although I am not yet prepared to list it as a Good Article it doesn't have far to go and I am placing it on hold. The areas of concern that are currently preventing promotion are listed below, and I will provide a space of seven days for these issues to be addressed or at least evidence that improvements are in the works. Well done so far, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    "He died at the age of 56, two years after his retirement from the Air Force in 1946." - this sectence is a little cofusing. It partly gives the meaning he retired in 1946 and died in 1948 (which is what was intended), but also partly appears to convey he died in 1946 after retiring in 1944.
    How does "He died in 1946, at the age of 56, two years after his retirement from the Air Force." sound?
    Sounds good to me.
    Done.
    "Goble was a founder member of No. 8 Squadron RNAS" - founder doesn't sound right. Do you mean founding?
    Heh, I originally wrote it as "founding", but someone changed it and I wasn't fussed - I think both are correct so no prob either way.
    Founder just doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's just the repetition of the "er", but I guess which ever is the consensus is the correct.
    Done.
    Ranks are not proper nouns, and are only capitalised when attached to a person's name.
    I don't have a strong feeling on this except for consistency a) within an article and b) with other similar articles. With articles I've worked heavily on like George Jones and Richard Williams, I applied the same standard and they were passed for FA- and A-class noms, respectively - same with similar B-class ones. Do you know if lower case is written in policy anywhere, since precedence could point to either convention?
    As far as I know, it isn't written in any policies, however I have seen many people decapitalise ranks that are not attached to names on the grounds that they are not proper nouns.
    I have too but, if you can live with it, prefer to leave as is here given reasons above and the fact that even articles on ranks, e.g. Flight Lieutenant, capitalise.
    Fair enough; it's only a minor issue anyway.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article is very well written, and broad in coverage in most areas, however in some sections it appears to be quite short and lacking detail. Such as:
    In the "Early career" section, although not required, would it be possible to include Goble's date of birth and to whom? Also, is there any information on his education? What school(s) he attended?
    Not schooling, I'm afraid, but can do the parents/origins. Prefer not to do DOB there as it's not standard and I leave it out of all similar articles, if that's okay.
    If you prefer to leave out his DOB, that's fine. It's a shame that information on his schooling is unavailable, but would you be able to add about his parents/origins?
    Done.
    Is it available why he was awarded the Croix de guerre? Also, would it be possible to clarify which country it was from? (France or Belgium?)
    Again, nothing specific on that. I assume it's French Croix as the Belgian one is usually qualified by the country name and this one isn't - but not putting that in as it's only an assumption.
    I would also lean more towards the French as it is more common, and I'm pretty sure that in the lead portrait it is the ribbon of the French varient. However, if there is no conclusive reference to support this, it is best not to be added.
    Agreed.
    Perhaps expand on why he was awarded the DSO and OBE, if possible.
    Nothing on OBE but DSO citation is quoted briefly in the body and in full in the footnotes.
    Fair enough on the OBE, and I understand what you mean on the DSO, but after reading the citation for the DSO, the quote in the body just doesn't quite seem to cut it. However, I will relent on the DSO due to the citation being included in the notes section if you are satisfied with it presently.
    Expanded on DSO a bit in the body.
    Would it be possible to expand on Caldwell's court-martial? As in, what exactly Goble decided/ruled, etc?
    The ruling is easy enough, the direct role Goble himself played and what he said may not be but I'll see what I can turn up.
    Done.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Founder member" seems perfectly usual usage to me. Full citations for DSC and DSo are in the related footnotes - more could be pulled into the article proper. The Gazette wouldn't cough up the permision to wear for the Croix de guerre, so it's unclear whether it was Belgian or French - the squadron seems to have been based at Dunkirk, so French might be more likely. I don't know of any source that records why foreign decorations were given - the Gazette entry merely records that permission to wear was granted. It does appear that The National Archives (UK) holds his WWI service record - but RNAS officer records haven't been digitised, so I'd have to try and order the original doucment to ascertain if there were anything useful in there, and being a priamry source we begin to run into the problem of original research in any case. David Underdown (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my mistake and adding a note on the AAF, David. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just another quick comment, in the name of consistancy, would it be possible to present the reference assess dates in the same style, rather than two differing varients? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, David. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all areas of concern having now been addressed, I am please to promote this excellent article to Good Article status. Congratulations! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time to review, mate, the article is better for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gazette quotes

[edit]

David and Bryce, I'm thinking we could afford to lose the Gazette quotes in the Notes for the DSC and CBE - aside from being linked, they don't really add to what's in the body of the article. I'm happy to leave the DSO one as it does offer a fair bit that I didn't want to detail in the body, even though one could still argue it's not vital given the link. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, they're not particualrly informative citations as you say. David Underdown (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you and David; I have no objection. One can just simply click on the link to see Goble's citations and, as you say Ian, they don't really add much to what is in the body already. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanley Goble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stanley Goble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stanley Goble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stanley Goble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ace

[edit]

Ian Rose my understanding is that ten victories is a double ace. But I don't find that terminology anywhere ... "he finished the war an ace, with ten victories". Is that not a common term? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Goble&oldid=1206230441"