Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cedric Howell/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].

Cedric Howell

Cedric Howell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Cedric Howell/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I have expanded this article on an Australian

• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk about rapid service! :) Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Images look properly licensed. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Made minor tweaks to italicise newspapers, remove with noun verb-ings, a few repetitions and redundancies. The prose looks solid and MOS is fine. The only other unusual thing is that no acronyms are ever used, but if this is consistent, it probably isn't a problem. I haven't checked MOS to see if acronyms are mandatory YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and tweaks, YellowMonkey. I am not a very big fan of acronyms in articles, and thus rarely utilise them. Also, as far as I know the use of acronyms is optional. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review

• The image size is being forced on most of the images.
  MOS:IMAGES
  discourages this as it overrides user preferences.
  • The forced sizes have been done as the images are to small when they are the default size; this is allowable per MOS:IMAGES. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Images sources, descriptions, authors, and dates looks are acceptable
• Good job! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article does a pretty good job of summarising a regrettably brief career. It doesn't give any of the sense of the man though (pompous as that sounds). This may be unavoidable, but is so little known about his personal life? The two questions that sprung out while speed reading the article were - did he volunteer to join the air service (or how was he picked), and pretty much any details of his relationship with his wife - all we know from this article is that he married her and that's it. This may not be actionable but it is a concern I'd like to at least know has tried to be resolved. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the information in the article is pretty much the extent of what is available. In regards to your two questions, Howell was picked from a group of volunteers/applicants (i.e. "Howell was among a group of 200 Australian applicants selected for a transfer to the Royal Flying Corps" [emphasis mine]), and the only things really known about his wife was that they wed and she, along with his parents and sister, was a chief mourner at his funeral. CHeers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments -- supported this for MilHist ACR and believe it's basically got what it takes for FA; apart from my usual copyedit, a few things:
  • On the outbreak for the First World War in June 1914, Howell attempted to enlist in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force but was initially rejected. -- need to drop or replace "in June 1914" for two (related) reasons: a) it wasn't a world war in June, Ferdinand had only just been shot; and b) the AIF wasn't formed until August (when it had become a world war).
    • Corrected. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to No. 17 Reserve Squadron in April, his rank was made substantive and he was appointed a flight officer on 25 July, being attached to the Central Flying School. -- this is a bit clumsy and could use restructuring; for one thing, his rank wasn't posted to No. 17 Sqn, he was... ;-)
    • Tweaked around into two separate sentences. How does it read now? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could use a bit less linking of obvious material, e.g. countries like Italy and France, as well as regions/states when their link immediately follows a city or town, e.g. "Adelaide, South Australia".
    • Agree with the first point and have edited accordingly. However, I feel the second is appropriate more for clarification purposes. Sure, we as Aussies know SA is a state and where it is, but people from other countries will not necessarily know. Also, if the state is mentioned more than once it is only linked the first time in the prose. Plus there is also the basis of consistency with other articles I have worked on and no one has ever said anything before ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "Adelaide, South Australia" works quite well because it gives context then and there to Adelaide and you can get to South Australia by following the Adelaide link if you're that interested, however it's not a big deal, the countries were the main thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know during ACR we discussed "Central" as an adjective but I think it should be used less, if at all, as I don't believe it's in very common usage. If you're not sure of the nationality of an aircraft, I don't think the occasional use of "enemy" is too politically incorrect (I seem to get away with it)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps not anywhere near as common as Allies, it is still used in some texts. Given that it is only used approximately four times in the entire article I do not think this is much of an issue. Regarding the usage of "enemy", I believe it is more of an
      WP:NPOV issue than political correctness. Just prior to taking Harry Murray to FAC, I was warned that the use of "enemy" could be perceved as somewhat of a bias and against the principals of NPOV, and on reflect I would have to agree. Basically, I have steered clear of such wording since then. Thanks for the review, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Heh, I can't see a charge of bias sticking if it's applied even-handedly - I wouldn't lose sleep over an article on a German pilot that occasionally used the term "enemy" for Allied aircraft to mix the wording up a bit - or "opponent" or "adversary" for that matter. One generally needs belligerents for a war... However as long as the use of Central is reduced a bit I'm not too fussed what's used in its place. Be good to get rid of the one in the intro - why not say "opponents" instead of "Central aircraft"? Or even just "aircraft", since one assumes we don't mean Allied planes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I want to try and remain as neutral as possible in the articles so stear clear from such wording as much as possible. Removed mention in the lead, though. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool - I'm happy with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I could find nothing to fault with this article, so I'm happy to offer my support. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, mate. :) CHeers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Fine article.--Grahame (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an excellent article which easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, Nick. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.