Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ian Dougald McLachlan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Parsecboy (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
Well, my first ACR for over six months due to travel commitments -- hope I still have the knack! Anyway, as far as building an article goes, this falls into the same category as John Lloyd Waddy and Brian Eaton for me, namely seeing how well I could do on someone who was clearly notable but had practically nothing in terms of dedicated biographical sources. I think there's enough detail for A-Class so we'll see how we go with this chap, who seems to have had a penchant for foreseeing unpalatable events -- at least on two occasions, which I'll let you discover for yourselves... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I didn't have any special plans for taking this to FAC if it makes A-Class, however I think it's about as complete as can be so welcome any thoughts on that either way... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: not much for me to say about this. Looks very good to me, I found one typo but have already fixed it. For the purposes of the review, I have the following tech comments:
- no dabs, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
- images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The article is very tight, I did a minor edit or two but it seems thorough enough already, well done. Two suggestions for improvement:
This might be a nitpick, but I was under the impression that we only put a person's rank before their bolded name in a military bio if they died at that rank. Since he retired before his death, shouldn't the lead say "Ian Dougald McLachlan was an Air Vice Marshal...?" Not sure on this one, just asking.You seem to have a few of his awards listed in various sections, maybe an "awards" section with his ribbon bar is in order. At the same time most of the FA military bios don't seem to have one so I suppose it isn't generally required.—Ed!(talk) 22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Tks Ed. My understanding has been that for 2-stars and above you always use the rank regardless of whether they retired or not -- it seems to stay with them, for instance he was listed as AVM McLachlan in Who's Who the year before he died, though he'd left the RAAF over 20 years before. Re. the honours, they are listed in the infobox; I'm one of a few editors who've had heated discussions in the past on the subject of award sections with ribbon images and have opposed them on the grounds of duplication and image-/list-cruft and, as you say, they've never been considered a requirement at A/FA-level... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. The article has my full support, then. —Ed!(talk) 02:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Ed. My understanding has been that for 2-stars and above you always use the rank regardless of whether they retired or not -- it seems to stay with them, for instance he was listed as AVM McLachlan in Who's Who the year before he died, though he'd left the RAAF over 20 years before. Re. the honours, they are listed in the infobox; I'm one of a few editors who've had heated discussions in the past on the subject of award sections with ribbon images and have opposed them on the grounds of duplication and image-/list-cruft and, as you say, they've never been considered a requirement at A/FA-level... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This article is in very good shape and mets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvements are:
- I'm not sure if you'll have an answer to this question, but was it the case that McLachlan was at Duntroon 'sponsored' by the RAAF but not actually a member of it given that the article states that he enlisted in the RAAF afterwards?
- Thanks Nick. Yep, that's why I used "sponsored" as the RAAF arranged for him to enter Duntroon (in the absence at that time of its own academy) but he obviously wasn't considered a member of the RAAF until graduation (or early transfer in this case) -- if you think there's a better way to word it, I'm happy to try it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems OK if the source is a bit vague. I think that I've read about similar arrangements applying to other personnel of this era, and it makes sense that the military wouldn't have enlisted someone who may have done badly in their officer training.
- Thanks Nick. Yep, that's why I used "sponsored" as the RAAF arranged for him to enter Duntroon (in the absence at that time of its own academy) but he obviously wasn't considered a member of the RAAF until graduation (or early transfer in this case) -- if you think there's a better way to word it, I'm happy to try it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit unclear whether McLachlan or No. 3 Squadron was "acerbic but capable" from the way its worded (McLachlan I assume)
- Is it? I thought putting "he led" immediately after the quote made it pretty clear it referred to him -- again happy to take suggestions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I was reading too quickly (or swapping between the article and the cricket too much); you're right.
- Is it? I thought putting "he led" immediately after the quote made it pretty clear it referred to him -- again happy to take suggestions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To whom did McLachlan question the delivery schedule and cost of the F-111? Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephens says he discussed it with a colleague in Washington. If you think "questioned" sounds like "publicly questioned" (doesn't look like that was in any way the case) then I could reword a bit; I did it this way because it was difficult to paraphrase the source otherwise, but I could always have another go... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, 'questioned' implies that it was a stance he took in communications with the RAAF and/or Australian government. Would something like "McLachlan personally doubted when the RAAF would actually receive its F-111s and their final cost" be in line with the source's wording? Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, tks for the reality check -- will reword similarly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, 'questioned' implies that it was a stance he took in communications with the RAAF and/or Australian government. Would something like "McLachlan personally doubted when the RAAF would actually receive its F-111s and their final cost" be in line with the source's wording? Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephens says he discussed it with a colleague in Washington. If you think "questioned" sounds like "publicly questioned" (doesn't look like that was in any way the case) then I could reword a bit; I did it this way because it was difficult to paraphrase the source otherwise, but I could always have another go... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you'll have an answer to this question, but was it the case that McLachlan was at Duntroon 'sponsored' by the RAAF but not actually a member of it given that the article states that he enlisted in the RAAF afterwards?
- Support - I reviewed this article for GA and could find nothing to fault it. IMO this meets the A class criteria as well. Anotherclown (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No major problems. I'll leave a few notes on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (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.