Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hippolyte De La Rue

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.

Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hippolyte De La Rue

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Well, I think it's about time I put up another RAAF bio for A-Class, and the extravagantly named Hippolyte De La Rue (nicknamed, of course, "Kanga") seems to fit the bill following a bit of expansion from the article's long-standing GA form. Like so many of the WWI vets who rose to senior command in the RAAF during the 1930s and WWII, he was a character, but not considered suitable to remain in the post-war military. FYI, I probably won't push this beyond ACR as detail on his post-service life is fairly minimal. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks pretty good to me. I only have a few minor points, so I am happy to support:
- the images appear appropriately licenced (I've tweaked them to add a US tag);
- alt text is present;
- there was one dab link, but I've piped it;
- the duplicate link checker tool identifies a couple of links that might be excessive: Flight lieutenant, George Jones (RAAF officer);
  - Tks mate, re. flight lieutenant, I think I left the first one as a placeholder for a possible RNAS rank stub, but never went ahead with it, so removed the second occurrence; Jones I thought it best to do twice as there was some space between the two mentions and it's such a common-sounding name... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "but financial considerations led to the plan being scuppered for the time being" --> "but financial considerations led to the plan being scuppered temporarily"?
  - Yes, better, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "noted that De La Rue possessed "fairly good Service knowledge" and was of strong character, "although sometimes his efforts are ill-directed". I wonder if the quote could be tweaked to make the sentence use the past tense (e.g. "are" --> "were");
  - Tweaked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References, are there page numbers for the ADB entry?
  - I used page numbers in the inline citation, but a better way of referencing a chapter is to use its title in the citation, and have the page numbers in the reference entry, so tweaked accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References, are there OCLC numbers for the Alexander and Wilson (David) works?
  - Never found any in my searches. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References, "Coulthard-Clark, C.D." and "Coulthard-Clark, Chris" seems inconsistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, his name is often rendered differently from work to work, sometimes initials, sometimes fist name, and I've just gone by what's on each piece -- I think he may have even dropped "Coulthard-" and just goes by the name of Chris Clark now... ;-) Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did he have a falling out with his second dad? Sorry, bad joke. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some notes/questions:
- Does "Frank" also count as a nickname?
  - I suppose it should, since I can't see how it's obviously derived from Ferdinand (let alone Hippolyte!) but the sources tend to employ Frank w/o quotes, and "Kanga" with... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have asked for Australian Flying Corps to be linked, but it is currently a redirect to RAAF, which is surprising Both RAAF and History of the Royal Australian Air Force are awful. Anyhow, the RAAF was not yet Royal when he joined in March 1921.
  - Yep, although it was later the same year -- can tweak. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should "Holsworthy" link to Holsworthy Barracks?
  - Why not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any idea what the "potential posting to the Middle East" that the British suggested was? Or why the government turned it down?
  - 'Fraid not, I'd like to know myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on No. 77 Squadron says that it was not formed until March 1942.
  - And your point is...? ;-) Well I'm assuming it's because I talk about units under his command in Western Area, including 77SQN, then mention a promotion in 1941, therefore going back in time -- but the list of units wasn't meant to suggest he commanded all of them from the get-go. Anyway, if it is that, I'm happy to rejig the order of the sentences -- just let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support - good work, struggled to find anything to quibble about but...
- "limited" education - is that a quote from somewhere? Shouldn't it be cited?
  - That's fair enough, will bring forward a later citation that's the source for this particular quote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "On 17 June..." - is that 1919 or 1920?
  - Well caught, thank you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, looking nice. Zawed (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for taking the time to review, Zawed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Cheers, Dank. Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.