Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Eric Harrison (RAAF officer)
- 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.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something (not sure what) has compelled me to review, update for style/formatting, and expand where possible all the bios I've done of the first generation of RAAF officers -- the veterans of World War I who joined the new Air Force at or shortly after its establishment on 31 March 1921. Many of those, such as Dicky Williams, Jimmy Goble, George Jones, Harry Cobby, Frank McNamara, "King" Cole and Henry Wrigley have already been through ACR and/or beyond. In other cases, like Bill Anderson and Eric Harrison, I've only recently compiled enough information to get them to what I consider ACR standard -- which is why you're reading this... ;-)
Harrison was, along with Henry Petre, one of the founders of the original Central Plying School at Point Cook, Victoria, in 1913–14. Unlike Petre, however, he remained a part of Australian military aviation after World War I, and so was the first man to be known as the "Father of the RAAF", a title more commonly bestowed in our own time on Dicky Williams. Harrison is therefore, as rightly described by an RAAF officer in 1999, something of an "unsung hero" now, so I hope you enjoy his story... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Nothing wrong with cleaning up your old articles; I've been doing a bit of that myself as well (and managed a FA out of the process). As usual Ian, this is great work. I have the following comments, however:
- Should the Central Flying School be referred to as an 'facility' (which implies it was some kind of building/base) or a 'unit' or a 'institution'? I don't really have a preference to be honest!
- Yep, the entire base (i.e. Point Cook) could properly be referred to as a facility but the CFS was indeed more a unit or institution -- think I'll change that.
- "Harrison took charge of instruction at CFS and was responsible for training student pilots of the Australian Flying Corps" - this is slightly repetitive and could be simplified
- You should probably explain Harrison's role in regard to No. 1 Squadron further; I take it that he established this unit, but someone else took it over before it left for the Middle East?
- Fair enough, I'll at least add that Hercules Reynolds (who might score a new article from me himself some time) took command of it for service in the Middle East -- that'll tie in nicely with the image we have.
- "Langslow was appointed Secretary to the Minister for Air" - do you mean the Ministry of Air here? Departmental secretaries head their department, and are not on the staff of the minister.
- Quite right, Sir Humphrey! Department of Air was meant.
- You might want to specify that the CFC only provided initial training in World War I, with the advanced training taking place in Britain (Fire in the Sky is pretty good on this topic)
- Well I don't think we should get too involved in stuff that was remote from Harrison but I guess we could briefly note the initial vs. advanced training situation.
- Yes, that's what I was getting at: as I understand it, CFS assessed applicants and taught basic flying skills, while RFC schools and later the AFC's 1st Training Wing in the UK provided training in combat aircraft and their tactics. As such, instead of saying "Harrison took on the main responsibility for training pilots of the first three squadrons " it might be better to write "Harrison took on the main responsibility for providing inital flying training to the pilots of the first three squadrons" Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I don't think we should get too involved in stuff that was remote from Harrison but I guess we could briefly note the initial vs. advanced training situation.
- Picture check All images are PD Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my comments are now addressed; great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, enjoyed it with minor comments:
- "and helped lay the foundations of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)." - Minor, but as the lead, this could be read either as a physical (he literally laid the foundations) or a more general action. "...helped establish the Royal..." would avoid any confusion.
- I'm not wed to "laid the foundations" but "establish" sounds to me like he had a direct hand in the RAAF's formation, which he did not. Does "laid the groundwork" sound better?
- "Following the outbreak of World War I"- worth linking World War I.
- It was pointed out to me a few FACs back that WWs I and II are such enormous subjects that linking them is a bit redundant. I concurred and so far most reviewers seem to agree, or at least not disagree... ;-) I have however linked it to Australia's involvement, which is an alternative that's also been acceptable to other reviewers.
- "having accumulated some thirty minutes flight time" - should there be an apostrophe after minutes?
- Reckon so, tks.
- " "Two competent mechanists and aviators" " - MOS would allow you to lower case the "two" if you wished.
- Done, tks.
- "While his new salary of £400" - the link clarifies the currency, but I'd advise spelling it out, in case someone didn't click on the link.
- Well I'd have thought that Australian currency was clearly implied given the context, and all my sources generally use the symbol...
- "Premier of Victoria" - should premier have a lower case letter here?
- Fair question but I believe upper case is always used for this particular office/title.
- "he reportedly went out of his way " - who are the quotes from? 19:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Support:
- no dramas with prose that I could find and the article is well referenced;
- alt text is present, there are no dab links, and the ext links all worked for me;
- affirming Nick's review, the images appear to be correctly licenced to me;
- spot checks using Google search didn't find any copyright violations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 12 May 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.