Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas White (Australian politician)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [1].

Thomas White (Australian politician) edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy White had a remarkable career. He was one of the first military pilots trained in Australia and saw action in World War I in the Mesopotamian campaign, during which he was captured but escaped three years later. He married the daughter of Australia's second Prime Minister, became a Federal parliamentarian, resigned on the eve of World War II, and served in the RAAF before getting his second bite of the political cherry as Minister for Air in Bob Menzies' Liberal government. Tks to those who took part in the article's MilHist A-Class Review last year, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Casting an eye over the recent additions to the list of FA candidates I spotted "Thomas White (Australian politician)" and thought "Hmm, I wonder who that's by?" I was not wrong, I see, and this contribution is well up to the Rose standard. A few points on the prose, none of which affect my support:

  • First World War section – given the heading, it might be smoother to make "the First World War" in the opening line just "the war". I don't press the point.
    • I guess I prefer to write paragraphs that can be read without the heading...
  • "at St John's Church of England in Toorak" – I quite see that it was a C of E church, but I don't think it quite works to elide "St John's Church of England church". Loyal son of the C of E though I am, I'd be inclined to make this just "at St John's Church, Toorak". But again, I don't press the point.
    • I tend to agree with you but the source renders it this way and I think we'd need to explain it was C of E somewhere...
  • "but lost to the sitting Labor member, James Fenton, by just over 9,000 votes" – it could be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the Australian electoral system of the time to say whether a 9,000 majority was a landslide, a narrow squeak or something in between.
    • The sources don't editorialise on the result so I think all I could offer is to recast it with the totals for White and his opponent, i.e. 19,000 to 28,000, and let the reader work it out.
      • Probably not worth the extra words. Consider the suggestion withdrawn. Tim riley talk 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Denied pre-selection as a Nationalist" – I struggle with this. Is it that the party declined to adopt him as a candidate (as we would say in Britain)?
    • Interesting, I thought pre-selection and de-selection were British terms -- your suggestion is probably more universal anyway though, so no prob.
  • "personal animosity for Menzies" – the nittiest of picks, but I think one has an animosity against, rather than for, someone. Perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong so far as AusEng is concerned.

Nothing there of any great moment. Happy to support this enjoyably readable article about an interesting person. Seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk

Thanks as always for your comments and support, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely content with the replies above. Nothing else to add. Tim riley talk 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM edit

This article is in fine shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR back in April last year, and could find precious little to quibble about then. I have a few comments:

  • Pre-WWI, AFAIK the part-time Army was the Citizen Forces, not the CMF, although anything prior to the 1903 Defence Act is a bit iffy in terms of terminology, as I think the colonial laws still prevailed
    • Hmm, looking at the sources for the first mention, the ADB uses Citizen Military Forces but the Prahran Telegraph says Citizen Forces, so I guess I could adopt the latter... What's your advice for subsequent mentions of CMF though, as the ADB continues with it?
  • the NAA file citations would benefit from a page number, eg fn 4
  • when Basra is first mentioned, there is some assumed knowledge about where that is
    • I can add the waterway it's on per Stephens and Cutlack.
  • following on from my comments at ACR, in respect to his election results, could they be rendered in percentage terms of the votes cast instead of raw vote numbers, as we don't know the sizes of the electorates, and don't know if 12,000 votes (for example) was a lot or a little?
    • If I may refer my honorable friend to the reply I made to Mr Riley earlier... rather than percentages, newspaper reports at this time seem to focus on the victor's majority, as well as the bare figures for each candidate, so I'd be happy to substitute the latter for what we have now and let the reader work out the decisiveness of the wins.
      • Either a percentage margin or the raw 2PP for both would be fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done the raw figures of winner vs runner-up for about half the results, which I think puts the majority-only figures in context, but let me know if you think more is needed. I could perhaps make the majority-only figures exact for more consistency with the winner/runner-up numbers, let me know what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think the "White was returned with a majority of over 26,000" formulation (used several times) works, because it isn't clear. Perhaps "White was returned by a margin of over 26,000" if that is what is meant? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I've dealt with this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Victorian Society for Crippled Children and Adults link Yooralla
  • his ADB entry states several things that would bear a mention, including his maiden speech about the AWM, his support of censorship, his support for the New Guard, his almost-resignation over conscription, that he was a dedicated protectionist, this should be mentioned, I think, as it was strong thread in early 20th century Australian politics. Also his identification with ex-serviceman's causes.
    • Okay, will have a look...
      • I guess I was a bit leery of repeating everything in the ADB entry... I've now mentioned the AWM speech, and protectionism. I'm not sure we need his support of censorship when he ran the relevant department; more unusual when your personal views run counter to your departmental responsibilities, i.e. re. protectionism. I already have his active support for conscription in 1938 in there -- I tried finding any mention of him considering resignation over it the previous year in Trove and the Lyons bio but found nothing. Re. ex-servicemen's causes, I think again it's how to put it without just repeating the ABD -- his support of Legacy is in the article. Likewise the New Guard -- not opposed to including it per se but where is a bit of a challenge given the way the ADB entry expresses it, and it seems curious to me that the only other mention of this I could find in Google (let alone Trove) is a study that uses the ADB as its sole source... Happy to discuss all this of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is my view that where a biographical book hasn't been written on someone, the ADB entry should be the basis for our article, because it is a distillation by someone who has done research and is familiar with the subject. Therefore everything in the ADB entry should be reflected in our article, esp at FA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tend to agree and the ADB entry is clearly the basis of the WP article, but the ADB doesn't follow quite the same formula as WP, including as it often does somewhat throwaway points in a summing up of the subject, which is where the New Guard is mentioned. I was interested in other sources of White and the New Guard not to verify the ADB, but to get context. Anyway I've done with it as best I think I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first para of Second World War and later parliamentary career could do with a chronological approach to his postings, as we learn of three positions, then get details of each one. I would suggest mentioning each in turn, along with the details of each one.
  • perhaps say when he returned to Australia from the UKHC job, as his death in Melbourne is rather sudden

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay PM, I think I've done everything I can without getting some feedback on a couple of points -- over to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did White suffer any criticism for sending No. 77 Squadron to Korea with the P-51? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or the selection of the Meteor to replace it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of -- Menzies is the pollie most closely associated with the Korean deployment. As for the Meteor, there was little alternative given the Americans weren't prepared to part with any Sabres at that time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't up to speed on that aspect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again PM, pls see above re. ADB info and election margins. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your time -- tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Thomas_Walter_White_1942_(AWM_011735).JPG: if this was taken by the British official photographer, why would it be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I missed this, Nikki -- I'm used to PD images in the AWM being AustralianGov but always happy to take your advice; do you believe it should have a UK Crown Copyright notice or something else? Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think UK Crown would make sense, unless there was some transfer of copyright that might have taken place on the AWM side. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi again Nikki, I daresay that's what happened, or the official UK photographer was acting on behalf on the RAAF since it was in Britain, but no way to be sure. I'm happy to go with UK Gov if you think that's the better of two uncertainties (what's certain is it's PD-Gov of some sort). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given the information provided I'd go with UK. You could contact AWM for clarification but since as you say it's PD either way I'm not overly concerned. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Consider it done -- tks again Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All external links to sources are working per the checker tool
  • No format issues
  • Sources appear to meet all the required criteria for quality and reliability

Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks, Brian. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild edit

I'll take a look at this. Give me a little while. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "when he deployed to the Middle East" To me this reads a little oddly - 'when he was deployed to the Middle East'?
    • I think the former is also correct but no problem changing it.
  • "when he was elected Member for Balaclava in Victoria" For non-Australians perhaps mention a member of what?
    • Well I could say "Member of Parliament for Balaclava" but I did mention his "parliamentary career" earlier in the sentence -- your thoughts?
I note from the main article that elected member for Balaclava (were there Australians at Balaclava?) means that he was elected to the Senate. A little research suggests that he could also have begun his parliamentary career by being elected to the House of Representatives. (I am open to correction on this.) If in Australian politics at the time there was little functional difference then it is fine as it was; otherwise it may, at your discretion, be worth flagging in the lead which. (If 'twere me I would be tempted to make the lead 'when he was elected to the Australian Senate as a member for Balaclava', but I certainly don't insist.) This is mentioned purely for your consideration.
House of Reps actually -- I've made explicit in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He joined the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during the Second World War" "joined ... during" reads oddly. Does one not either join at a specific point in time (not during), or for the duration of something?
    • Hmm, I still think it reads okay. I didn't particularly want to say a year alone because I want to make it clear to the uninitiated that it was during wartime, but mentioning a year as well as the fact it was during the war seems a bit much.
      • Came up with something, see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That reads much better to me.
  • "the Half Flight assisted the Indian Army" Not sure about this - but are you sure about the upper case H and F?
    • I'll double-check some of the sources for how they treat it. It's true that "flight" would always be lower case but a half flight is pretty well unique in Australian military aviation so might warrant being rendered as a proper name...
      • Three sources, including two from the 2000s, all treat it as a proper name even without "Mesopotamian" so I think we should leave as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had't realised that a/the half flight was so unique. If it was then, obviously, it is fine capitalised and apologies for my error.
  • "80 mph (129 km/h)" Optional: the spurious accuracy of the conversion jars a little. Suggest |sigfig=2.
    • Okay will give it a try.
      • Heh, wasn't even using convert, now fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well as reconnaissance and bombing, White carried out several operations behind enemy lines." I honestly don't understand what this means. I assume that the "reconnaissance and bombing" were behind enemy lines, so what were the other "several operations"? Would it be possible to be more specific?
    • I was trying to distinguish between his purely aerial missions (recce and bombing) and his ground missions (landing behind lines to conduct sabotage) -- will see about tweaking.
      • Actually I think I was over-complicating things before, simplified along the lines you suggested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite being fired upon by the tribesmen" "upon"? 'on'? (And again later.)
  • "He was imprisoned initially in Mosul" Optional: 'He was initially imprisoned in Mosul'?
    • Will have a look.
      • I think some would argue it's correct as is but happy to change. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not try to argue that the earlier version was incorrect, hence the "optional", but to me the later one flows better; ie is more "engaging and ... professional". But entirely up to you and feel free to change back if you wish.
Happy to leave. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to discuss the growing numbers of Jewish emigrants seeking to leave Germany and occupied territories" Had Germany occupied any territories by July 1938?
Whoops. How embarrassing.
  • "as a flight lieutenant (temporary squadron leader)" Does this mean that his substantive rank was flight lieutenant and that he was an acting squadron leader? If so, why not simply say so? If not, what does it mean?
    • "Temporary" and "acting" ranks are two different things (the former is usually longer-lasting than the latter) -- I could pipe it to Military_rank#Types_of_rank if that helps.
No. Feel free to leave as it is. A suggestion (only): maybe 'as a flight lieutenant (and temporary squadron leader)'; or (better IMO) 'as a flight lieutenant and temporary squadron leader'.
Tks, I might leave as is then; it's in other articles and I believe reflects the way sources often render it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by this time the school was training over 900 pupils" I feel that this either needs a time period (eg 'was training over 900 pupils per year') or specifying that it is a running total (eg 'had trained over 900 pupils')
    • Will double-check the source.
      • The school had over 900 students in September 1941 when White left -- could I perhaps express this by simply saying either "at this time the school was training over 900 pupils" or "by this time the school had over 900 pupils"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either would clarify nicely, although personally I like the former.
Done. Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "procedures for commissioning and promotion of Australian airmen" Either 'commissioning and promoting Australian airmen' or 'the commissioning and promotion of Australian airmen'.
    • Yes, one or the other is probably preferable.
  • "Royal Commission" → 'royal commission'.
  • "Following the Liberal Party victory". "the" → 'a'.
    • Mmm, I think 'the' is appropriate because we've just mentioned the Federal election in the previous sentence...
OK.

I have not carried out a source review, but I note that Guests of the Unspeakable lacks a publication location. (Crows Nest, N.S.W.)

Just as good a quality article as I thought it was going to be. Just the picky points above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking a look Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I've either actioned everything or requested follow-up from you. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All outstanding points commented on in turn. I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's everything now -- let me know. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping make it a better article, Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber edit

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I am okay with "joined...during" BTW Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Cas, came up with something for that anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thomas_White_(Australian_politician)/archive1&oldid=908477770"