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 Ian Rose 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Iven Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Iven Mackay/archive1

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the series of articles on Command in the South West Pacific Area during World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hawkeye7. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spot checks not done

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• FNs 20, 22 and similar should use endashes not hyphens
• FN69, 76: publisher?
• Don't use both {{cite}} and {{citation}} - stick with one
• Horner: ordering of location and publisher doesn't match other citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Shouldn't File:Iven Mackay.jpg have a PD-Art tag to satisfy US copyright?
  • No, but I have added a PD-Art tag anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is US copyright status of File:Lieutenant and Mrs W. H. Travers.jpg?
  • Photograph taken in 1941. Entered PD in Australia before 1996, therefore in PD in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Images are appropriately licensed.
• Why is this notable or important? Mackay recommended nineteen of his officers and men for decorations for this action.
  • It illustrates the desperate nature of the action. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? There's no standard of comparison provided for a reader to judge that number against.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Did he take a degree while at Cambridge?
  • No. This was not unusual. Writing up scientists shows it to be a common pattern to study at some remote location just after getting your BSc or PhD. In 1919, there were really only four places a physicist wanted to go: Berlin (Planck), Munich (Sommerfeld), Cavendish (Rutherford) or Copenhagen (Bohr). Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Did he have any significant appointments or duties in between brigade commands?
  • There was no time between his brigade appoints. Before he took over the 2nd Division, he was on the unattached list Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure there is, between 8th and 5th Brigades, 1926-1930, is unaccounted for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Checks the gradation list.) He was on the unattached list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't this missing a "the" in front of Cabinet: but Cabinet, after consulting with Blamey--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Where are you? We don't say that in Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colorado. Y'all really just say "Cabinet decided" as opposed to "the Cabinet decided"? I don't think that even the Brits drop the article when discussing the War Cabinet, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've never really answered this question to my satisfaction. Aussies don't use the article "the" when talking about actions taken by the Cabinet? Then why does a quick Google search show Australian gov't docs referring to "the Cabinet"?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I used to work in the same building as the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Check the way it the word is normally used by the National Archives or the Parliamentary Education Office. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, that's just bizarre. I see references to the Cabinet and just plain Cabinet when I'd use the former. I guess it is an Aussie thing. Is it also true for the Kiwis?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes. They also have a Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and they do seem to use the word the same way as Aussies do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

• "the Battle of Hazebrouck, Battle of Amiens and at the attack on the Hindenburg Line.": nonparallel.
• "Having remained in the Militia between the wars, by the time the Second World War broke out, he was a major general.": A couple of rules of thumb here: consider whether two long introductory phrases is too much, and keep words (such as "having") reasonably close to what they refer to ("he"). So, move "he was a major general" to the middle of the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "GOC Home Forces": General Officer Commanding (GOC) Home Forces - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. Now that John's doing a prose review, I'll stop there and defer to him. If there are problems, ping me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Prose looks decent. Try and avoid "a number of"; zero, pi and negative nine are perfectly good numbers. --John (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another excellent article, and I'm glad to see you've not forgotten your SWPA general project. I made a handful of minor edits, and I have just a few queries, but nothing that would make me hesitate to support.

• becoming adjutant of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Normand MacLaurin's 26th Infantry Battalion is a long chain of links; perhaps cull some or rephrase to spread them out a bit?
• Do the sources say anything about why he didn't receive a VC? Also, wasn't there a practice at the time of awarding the DSO to near-VC recipients? Any idea if he was considered for that?
  • The practice of awarding the DSO for near-VC acts dates to a much later period. (However, he did get the DSO for it in the end.) We don't know why the VC was not granted. However, seven VCs were awarded for Lone Pine, more than for any other Australian battle, so the threshold was very high. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Cabinet, after consulting with Blamey, switched this appointment Any idea why?
  • Gavin Long doesn't say.
    • If you like, I can do some Original Research here. The relevant papers are War Cabinet Agendum - No 67/1940 - Appointment of Commanders of the 6th and 7th Divisions, 2nd AIF, which are here in Canberra. Apparently, Blamey tipped a bucket on Lavarack, whom he didn't like at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still can't make sense of the decision though. Blamey doesn't like Lavarack, so let's send him later. What were they hoping for? Lavarack having a fatal heart attack or something? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Watch what you do with punctuation at the end of quotes; I think the MoS prefers it after the closing quote mark, but whatever you do, do it consistently (I've just made these consistent as I've been through).
  • The MOS wants the full stop in if it was inside the original quote and outside if the quote is a fragment. But it looks inconsistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this for GA a while back and have reviewed the changes made since then. I made a few minor tweaks, including one of the image licences. Otherwise I believe it all looks good. Please review my edits and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- Curious about your employment of the post-nom template. Speaking as a fellow military biographer on WP I like the idea but I can't see where it's common practice to display them without commas, or so miniscule. FWIW, I've said as much to the people who like to throw them into military bios but had no response. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the argument at Template talk:Post-nominals. My position is that the templates should be used as a matter of practice. When they decide what the story is, they will all change together. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myself I think it's better to wait until a decent format is in, but this isn't the place for that discussion -- I note however that the template purports to have a parameter to increase the size of the font. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: High-quality, well-written, and well-researched article about an interesting subject whom I had never heard of before. I'll acquiescence to other reviewers regarding the format of military articles, and if the sources are adequate for this topic. Nice job bringing attention to an important Australian military figure. Prose is excellent with the feedback followed above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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