Talk:William McAloney/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 11:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One to get to before this but like to claim it anyways... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- no dab or external link issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose -- completed my habitual copyedit, let me know if any issues.

Coverage

McAloney was involved in an investigation into a series of engine failures experienced by RAAF aircraft -- this piques my curiosity, does the source mention any particular units, aircraft or engine types?
- Unfortunately not. I figured you'd be interested in that bit, but I have as yet not been able to find the answer. My source only says that McAloney travelled through the North Western, North Eastern, Eastern and Southern Areas as part of a special investigation "on engine failures at all units including transport squadrons". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
an attempt to determine whether the issues were the result of substandard maintenance or defective components -- do we know the answer?!
- Same as the above, unfortunately. Although in the following section of the source it details McAloney's duties at the Directorate of Technical Services, which included the investigation of engine defect reports. It also mentions that he was involved in the compilation of orders and instructions on both Pratt & Whitney and gas turbine engines. So, in light of the issues at 1TAF, I'd say it probably was the Pratt & Whitney engines being investigated, but for me to link the two in the article may voyage into OR... :/ Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The detachment proved short lived with the disbandment of No. 90 Wing -- do any of your sources specifically refer to 90 Wing as "short-lived" (or equivalent)? I ask because it reads as though it was expected to be a permanent formation, and I don't think it was. Or were you referring to McAloney's attachment (not detachment)?
- Sorry, my error. Definitely concerning McAloney here (No. 90 Wing, from what I know, was created only for service in Malaya and came from the demands of Jones to retain control so the RAAF units wouldn't be swallowed up in British command). Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You sure the Department of Air was at Laverton? I figured that, being Federal Government, it was always in Canberra...
- I was slightly surprised about this as well, actually. But apparently the Department of Air was based in Melbourne until 1959, at which point it went to Canberra. See here. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay that gels -- RAAF Headquarters was in Vic Barracks, Melbourne, till 1959 so it makes sense DepAir was there too -- they merged (and moved to Canberra) in 1959. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
within the department responsible for the maintenance of aircraft -- this reads a bit awkwardly to me, does the source name the dept, e.g. Maintenance Command?
- On a check of the source you are correct, good sir. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's good, although "responsible for the maintenance of aircraft" now looks a bit repetitive and obvious -- I think you could afford to drop that little bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried to fiddle with this a bit to avoid that, although the present wording doesn't work either does it? :/ I was attempting to state that McAloney's position involved the maintence of aircraft as opposed to leaving it ambiguous. Have removed a little, how does it look now? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, still looks a bit funny -- how about "servicing of aircraft" as a non-repetitive substitute for the previous "maintenance of aircraft"? Sorry didn't think of it before... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
his tireless efforts -- is "tireless" a quote, 'cos it seems a bit peacockish otherwise...
- Hmm, I was afraid of that. Technically the source specifies "tirelessly", but I suppose it can still be classed as a quote with the last two characters cut off. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about simply using "constant" (w/o the quotes of course)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much better. Done. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structure/referencing/supporting materials -- all look fine, incl. image licensing.

Summary -- nice work as usual, Bryce, let me know about the queries above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Ian. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure, though I don't think the OBE counts as a decoration does it? I'd have been happy with "honour" as a general term but I realise that would be repetitive following "New Years Honours", so "appointment" seemed the best bet even though that was a bit repetitive too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it does. Not quite in the conventional sense that, say, a VC or DFC would, but it is still a decoration even if within an order. I have substituted "honour" in as I think repeating it twice is better than appointment thrice (extension of appointment, OBE, and then here :/). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I hadn't counted the "extension of appointment" instance, so "honour" is definitely the best compromise after all, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great-looking article, passing as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]