Jump to content

Talk:William McAloney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWilliam McAloney has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 20, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 8, 2013WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 19, 2009, and February 19, 2009.
The text of the entries was:
  • February 19, 2009: Did you know ... that William McAloney was awarded the Albert Medal for his attempted rescue of a pilot trapped in a burning aircraft?
  • February 19, 2009: Did you know ... that William McAloney was awarded the Albert Medal for his attempted rescue of a pilot trapped in a burning aircraft?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 31, 2023, and August 31, 2024.
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:William McAloney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 11:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One to get to before this but like to claim it anyways... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- no dab or external link issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose -- completed my habitual copyedit, let me know if any issues.

Coverage

  • McAloney was involved in an investigation into a series of engine failures experienced by RAAF aircraft -- this piques my curiosity, does the source mention any particular units, aircraft or engine types?
    • Unfortunately not. I figured you'd be interested in that bit, but I have as yet not been able to find the answer. My source only says that McAloney travelled through the North Western, North Eastern, Eastern and Southern Areas as part of a special investigation "on engine failures at all units including transport squadrons". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • an attempt to determine whether the issues were the result of substandard maintenance or defective components -- do we know the answer?!
    • Same as the above, unfortunately. Although in the following section of the source it details McAloney's duties at the Directorate of Technical Services, which included the investigation of engine defect reports. It also mentions that he was involved in the compilation of orders and instructions on both Pratt & Whitney and gas turbine engines. So, in light of the issues at 1TAF, I'd say it probably was the Pratt & Whitney engines being investigated, but for me to link the two in the article may voyage into OR... :/ Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detachment proved short lived with the disbandment of No. 90 Wing -- do any of your sources specifically refer to 90 Wing as "short-lived" (or equivalent)? I ask because it reads as though it was expected to be a permanent formation, and I don't think it was. Or were you referring to McAloney's attachment (not detachment)?
    • Sorry, my error. Definitely concerning McAloney here (No. 90 Wing, from what I know, was created only for service in Malaya and came from the demands of Jones to retain control so the RAAF units wouldn't be swallowed up in British command). Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sure the Department of Air was at Laverton? I figured that, being Federal Government, it was always in Canberra...
  • within the department responsible for the maintenance of aircraft -- this reads a bit awkwardly to me, does the source name the dept, e.g. Maintenance Command?
  • his tireless efforts -- is "tireless" a quote, 'cos it seems a bit peacockish otherwise...

Structure/referencing/supporting materials -- all look fine, incl. image licensing.

Summary -- nice work as usual, Bryce, let me know about the queries above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Ian. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure, though I don't think the OBE counts as a decoration does it? I'd have been happy with "honour" as a general term but I realise that would be repetitive following "New Years Honours", so "appointment" seemed the best bet even though that was a bit repetitive too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it does. Not quite in the conventional sense that, say, a VC or DFC would, but it is still a decoration even if within an order. I have substituted "honour" in as I think repeating it twice is better than appointment thrice (extension of appointment, OBE, and then here :/). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I hadn't counted the "extension of appointment" instance, so "honour" is definitely the best compromise after all, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great-looking article, passing as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]