Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lester Brain
- 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 -MBK004 06:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
Slight change of pace for me with someone more notable for his achievements in civil as opposed to military aviation (Chief Pilot at Qantas, first GM of TAA), but still a member of the RAAF reserve for more than 20 years, and a recipient of the King's Commendation for bravery under fire in WWII. Also another famous airman (think Charles Eaton and Les Holden) involved in the 1929 search for Charles Kingsford Smith and Charles Ulm and, ultimately, too other searchers who themselves became tragically lost. There's quite a bit there; any and all comments welcome as I think this has the legs for FA... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: No problems reported with dab links or external links. One image is in need of alt text, please add this forthwith. Otherwise the article looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Tom, however the image already has alt text, and has done since the article was created. May be something with this infobox - any ideas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, sure enough, no-one had added an alt parameter to that particular template -- but guess what, I have now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Tom, however the image already has alt text, and has done since the article was created. May be something with this infobox - any ideas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Airplaneman ✈ 03:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: overall another excellent article in my opinion. I have a couple of comments, however:
Citation # 30 (Cadigan pp. 211-212), the title is not quite correct: it says "Man Among Mavericks", but it should be "A Man Among Mavericks"- Indeed it should, tks.
per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military terms the ranks don't seem to correctly capitalised in some instances (for instance in the lead, "Wing Commander" should be "wing commander"), although I seem to remember you've explained this variation to me before;- Yep, in the past, as long as it's consistent, it's been acceptable to capitalise ranks in all instances. I've found it especially clearer to do so while writing bios on Royal Naval Air Service personnel, where one could be a flight commander (i.e. a position, in command of a flight) but a equally a Flight Commander (i.e. a rank). Admittedly that's an extreme case but I still think always capitalising is simpler, and it's never been a stopper.
- No dramas, makes sense when you explain it that way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, in the past, as long as it's consistent, it's been acceptable to capitalise ranks in all instances. I've found it especially clearer to do so while writing bios on Royal Naval Air Service personnel, where one could be a flight commander (i.e. a position, in command of a flight) but a equally a Flight Commander (i.e. a rank). Admittedly that's an extreme case but I still think always capitalising is simpler, and it's never been a stopper.
could convert templates be added to the distances, e.g. in the Qantas section "580-mile route...by 284 miles". Also later "approximately 130 km east-south-east"- You caught me being lazy... ;-) Will do.
in the World War II section "nine Zero fighters strafed the harbour with cannon". Should it be "cannons"?— AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- "Cannon" should be okay for singular or plural here. Tks for review, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: all my concerns have been explained/addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A superb article, very nice work, Ian. I could find nothing wrong with it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm happy now. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.