Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanley Goble

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stanley Goble

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom for this article on a significant figure in Australia's military aviation history, as I believe it meets the criteria. Was a B-class article for some time, after which I reviewed and made some enhancements, nominating for GA which it's just passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)


Comment

  • Allegiance = Commonwealth of Australia would this not be the Crown ?
    • "Commonwealth of Australia" (or simply "Australia") seems to be an accepted way of rendering it in similar articles.
  • Is Federal Govenment the correct term the link take you to The Commonwealth of Australia is a federal constitutional monarchy under a parliamentary democracy.
    • May not be ideal but closest thing to an Australian Federal Government article I've seen. If it seems confusing, an alternative might be to just use "Australian Government" and lose the link entirely.
  • Any more details on his early life section, Born then went to work with the Victporian Railway leaves a lot out schooling etc ?
    • Agree but, as discussed in the GA review, none of references consulted include schools, or much of anything else in his early life.
      • Expanded the section somewhat.
  • Why did he fail the strict medical criteria?
    • Again the sources are not too precise but will review and see if I can add any more useful detail.
      • Done.
  • Why and for what did he win the Croix de guerre ? i presume it was not for being promoted to Flight Lieutenant Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, brought up in GA review - unfortunately nothing in any current sources I've seen. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reworded slightly to minimise any suggestion of direct connection between promotion and Croix. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • Please format references according to this referencing style.
  • Use endashes for page ranges in citations. Example: p. 31-32 -> p. 31&ndash;32.
    • Done.
  • "Early career" section needs expansion and more references in my opinion.
    • Done.
  • Same for 1st and 2nd paragraphs, "World War I" section; last paragraph, "Circumnavigation of Australia" section and 1st para, "World War II" section.
    • World War I done.
    • Circumnavigation of Australia & World War II done.
  • Per MOS:IMAGE, text shouldn't be sandwiched between two images (Circumnavigation of Australia section).
    • Done.
  • It would be nice if you'd add some references in the infobox, especially within "Unit", "Commands held" and "Awards".
    • My reading of things has always been that we don't clutter the infobox with citations unless absolutely necessary; rather that, like the intro, it should summarise referenced info in the body of the article. I believe everything in the infobox is cited in the main body, so do you still consider this an issue?

Good job and keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, will address all the other points you've raised in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that all my above comments would make your life easier through a FAC, it's up to you whether you apply them or not. I will support this article now as it meets all our A-class criteria in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article for GA, and in the few short days since it's passing the article has been enhanced even further in standard. This is a well written article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment There's something vaguely disturbing about an article that leaves me with questions rather than answers.

  • I'm also curious about what was wrong with his physique that caused his rejection by the AIF but not the RNAS. The most common cause was height - but this is not the case here.
    • You and me both - at the outset I'll just say that Goble does have one of the most intricate rank and service histories of anyone I've written on. On this point, only snippet I haven't already put in is from Alan Stephens, who mentions "minor medical grounds". Didn't think that added anything I could put it in if you think it's an improvement.
  • "That year [1919] he returned to Australia a Lieutenant Colonel". But Goble returned to Australia on the Gaika on 8 November 1918, as major.
    • The 1919 date was from the ADB entry but you must have another source - can you supply the details?
NAA (Vic) MT1487/1 2001/00494397 [1] Digitised, so you can read it online. Just a page on his coming home. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what capacity was he seconded to the RAN?
    • No info on that - ADB just uses that expression, Gazette from 6 August 1920 says "empld. with the Commonwealth Government of Australia (Royal Australian Navy)".
  • "On 9 November 1920, Goble, like Williams, dropped the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and became a Wing Commander". But the RAF changed over to its new ranks on 1 August 1919. Why didn't he change then? Wasn't he still an RAF officer?
    • Stephens suggests both Goble and Williams were Lt Colonels in the Australian Air Corps, a branch of the Army, at this point. I can put that in to make it clearer.
    • Well the ADB says "Thus, although he received a permanent commission in the Royal Air Force as a squadron leader on 1 August 1919, he was at once made an honorary wing commander and seconded for service with the Royal Australian Navy." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, and that's also backed up by the Gazette. Also found another Gazette entry that we don't yet have in the article which notes that he resigned his commission from the RAF the day the Australian Air Force was formed (to join the AAF). I think I'll put that in and drop entirely the LtCol to Wingco bit. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Federal Government allegedly had a policy of ensuring that they were never in the country at the same time" But the article makes it clear that this was not the case. (Also note Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words)
    • I think the article makes pretty clear that they were rarely in the country at the same time. I used "allegedly" since there appears to be no actual evidence of such a policy, simply that many commentators have suggested it. Can reword a bit.
      • Done - believe the expression used now is consistent with cited source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newspapers reported that Goble had resigned "on a matter of high principle" " What high principle was that? The abandonment of the concept of an autonomous Air Expeditionary Force? The hare-brained EATS? Conflict with Air Commodore John Russell? (Over what?) The article does not make it clear at all.
    • I can add some more from that news report.
Now you've made me look it up. I discover that it was the conflict with Air Commodore John Russell. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one of the reasons noted by the sources, but the abandonment of the AEF is also part of it. If you're not sure about my latest version of this, can you suggest wording? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a Featured Article on the Morotai Mutiny. Why isn't it linked to?
    • Yep, I know that article quite well and don't normally need an excuse to link to it, but it didn't seem particularly appropriate in this case. Caldwell was court martialled for alcohol trafficking on the island, not for the "mutiny" (some have implied a connection of course but I wasn't going to get into that here).
  • "Many other senior RAAF commanders who were veterans of World War I, including Richard Williams, were also retired at this time, ostensibly to make way for the advancement of younger officers." The article details the difficulties involved if there are too many senior officers left at the top after a war. But Jones' actual words seem to be recommending Goble's discharge on medical grounds, and Goble dies of hypertension a couple of years later.
    • No disagreement but not sure what you're recommending. Jones said what he said, but Goble's exit should also be seen in context of the other forced retirements of his fellow high-ranking officers at the same time.
It seems on the face of it that things are the other way around; that Jones ostensibly removed Goble on medical grounds, but actually to get rid of another annoying officer more senior than himself. I take your point. Leave it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "cerebro-vascular disease" be Cerebrovascular disease? And linked?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You credit Goble with seven victories but [2] lists ten:
        Date            Time    Unit    Aircraft                Opponent                Location
1 	21 Jul 1916 	1750 	1W 	Nieuport (8517) 	C (OOC) 	        E of Dixmude
2 	15 Aug 1916 	0720 	1W 	Nieuport (8517) 	Seaplane C (DES) 	Off Westende
3 	22 Sep 1916 	1530 	1W 	Sopwith Pup (3691) 	LVG C (OOC) 	        Ghistelles
4 	16 Nov 1916 	1055 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	LVG C (OOC) 	        Gommecourt
5 	17 Nov 1916 	1535 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (DES) 	        Bapaume
6 	27 Nov 1916 	0950 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (DESF) 	        SE of Bapaume
7 	04 Dec 1916 	1100 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	Halberstadt D.II (OOC) 	SE of Bapaume
8 	11 Dec 1916 	1010 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (OOC) 	        E of Bucquoy
9 	16 Mar 1918 	1100 	5N 	D.H.4 (N6001) 1 	Albatros D.V (DES) 	Bohain-Le Catelet
10 	16 Mar 1918 	1100 	5N 	D.H.4 (N6001) 1 	Albatros D.V (OOC) 	Bohain-Le Catelet

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, it's an impressive list - but how reliable is this site? I see it quotes a book but I don't know Frank's accuracy vs. Cutlack and Stephens. Perhaps a footnote to the seven victories we mention in the article already, saying he has been credited with as many as 10 and citing this? (I was hoping the two figures could be reconciled by assuming Cutlack and Stephens only credited him for victories as a pilot but according to this table that'd give him 8, not 7.) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reviewed everything and found - mea culpa! - that Cutlack did not give a figure after all, leaving it between Stephens with 7 and The Aerodrome / Frank with 10. Have rejigged the article to accommodate both, and of course am open to further discussion or suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on references: (this version)
    • What makes #11 and 37 reliable?
    • That's all. Otherwise they look excellent. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Ed. Re. #11, The Aerodrome, I'm primarily relying on the site - which has been used in many WP articles - because it shows evidence of robust sourcing, in this case a book by Norman Frank which I've since located and found agrees with the representation on the web. Of course I could just use the book but I prefer to include online references where possible for ease of verification. To be fair, I was initally dubious myself in this instance (see above) but that was when I thought I had two reliable references claiming 7 kills vs. the The Aerodrome / Frank with 10, when in fact it was only one claiming 7 vs. one claiming 10. Re. #37, Powerhouse Museum is a major Australian museum so I think its web site is as reliable as say the Australian War Memorial. Last thing, re. your arbitrary change to the references section format - I'd prefer to return to the earlier style as it's consistent with similar RAAF and other Australian military biography articles, and is within MOS guidelines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No objections then, but watch Aerodome if you go to FAC...you might will get questioned by Ealdgyth if you go there, so make sure that it passes WP:V. :)
          • Tks for the warning - and appreciate your faith referring to FAC but don't want to get ahead of ourselves, still got to get through ACR...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • After I changed the section names, I made this, which will explain why I did that much better than my edit summary.....but yes, they pass MoS either way. =D
          • For now I'll opt for consistency with similar RAAF bios but many tks for further explanation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is still a problem with 7 vs. 10, see what Maralia and I did on USS Nevada (BB-36) when a question about the number of torpedo tubes appeared...(in the infobox). You might be able to do the same.... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 14:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That looks like a pretty elegant way of dealing with multiple viewpoints of similar reliability, Ed. With just the two sources in this case I'll stick to how it is but if more arise then your method makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Woody

Oppose for now I can't see much wrong with the article, though I have a few lingering content concerns. It seems comprehensive to me, though there are a couple of issues.

  • Heh, poor ole' Jimmy - he seemed to have a hard time getting unqualified approval during his life, and his ACR's no different...! No prob, that's what we're here for - hopefully all objections addressed below.
MOS stuff
  • The images at the bottom should be staggered and not all in a line. It is overwhelming the text and I think there is something in the MOS about left aligned images above level 2 section headers. If you have to, remove one to make way.
  • As you may know, Woody, I also prefer staggered images. However Eurocopter pointed out earlier that when arranged that way in the original version that I submitted for ACR, text ended up sandwiched between two images on left and right, hence my moving one of those to the left. Have now rejigged the section so it should satisfy all prefs.
  • If they get sandwiched, remove them. It looks fine to me now. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May-June 1942 should have an endash.
    • Done.
  • I'm not sure, but I thought Commonwealth English was First World War / Second World War as opposed to World War I / World War II.
  • I know the former style is often used in Commonwealth-related articles and I don't change it in articles where it's already in place but hadn't understood it to be 'Commonwealth English' per se. I'm just going on precedent since it hasn't been raised as a concern in other ACRs/FACs I've nominated. It doesn't fuss me either way particularly but if I change it here I'd feel kind of obliged to change it in all the other similar articles I've done. However if you think we should standardise this way then I'm happy to do it - let me know.
  • I'm not one for all this mumbo-jumbo about correct usage. You might find some reviewers who are vociferous about this, but I'm not one of them. If it is consistent within an article, and this one is, then I'm happy. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content stuff
  • You don't mention that he was shot down twice during WWI.
    • Done.
  • There seems to be little to nothing in this article about his personal life. His wife is only mentioned when you talk about his legacy. There is no mention of when he got married.
    • Done.
  • Was he buried or cremated?
    • Done.
  • That's it from me I think. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now. I have replied to some of your comments, but it looks A-Class to me. Well done. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Stanley_Goble&oldid=1126878062"