Talk:John Lloyd Waddy

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Lloyd Waddy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. If this came up at FAC I think I'd vote in favour without the need for revisions. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jacky! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Lloyd Waddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008221819/http://www.fatheroftheyear.com.au/fatheroftheyear/history to http://www.fatheroftheyear.com.au/fatheroftheyear/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Terms PAF and CAF

"Permanent Air Force" is not the formal name of an organization. There was never a separate organization by that name therefore, it is not the correct term to use, regardless of its incorrect use in any source. "Permanant air force" is certainly not a proper noun to be capitalized. The organization's name is The Royal Australian Air Force and should be referred to as such. The RAAF uses the term "Permanent Air Force" for its internal uses. Therefore, it is the "RAAF's permanent air force". The term "permanent air force" was derived from earlier references to the re-established Australian Army, Australian Air Corps as a "permanent air force"), therefore reference needs to be made to "RAAF" to distinguish it. The description "RAAF permanent air force" or "RAAF's permanent air force" may be appropriate but not "Permanent Air Force" on its own. There is certainly nothing wrong with adding "RAAF" before the term permanent air force.

"Citizens Air Force", similarly, was never an official name, was never the name of a separate organization and is certainly not a proper noun to be capitalized. The organization's name is The Royal Australian Air Force and should be referred to as such. The RAAF uses the term "Reserve" which is widely used and recognized. "Citizens Air Force" was never official or widely used, less still widely recognized. Regardless of whether a source or others incorrectly referred to the RAAF reserve as the "Citizens Air Force" or "CAF", it is not the correct term to use and certainly unnecessary in this article. CAF has other, much better-known uses and derogatory connotations. The article referred to:

"the RAAF Reserve, also known as the Citizen Air Force"

therefore, that edit version acknowledged that the term "RAAF reserve" is correct. That the RAAF reserve was "also" referred to as the CAF or some other name by some is superfluous and irrelevant to an article on Lloyd Waddy.

An editor suggested their reversion to the terms PAF and CAF was "per sources" but those sources put the terms in fuller, proper context which is not conveyed in this article. It is therefore inaccurate to say the edit was per sources. One of the cited sources does not use or justify the words of the article. It is not necessary to retain the terminology and wording of a source unless an entire passage is being quoted. Another editor gave excuses (so eloquently) that the terms PAF and CAF "were the titles of those things" and "what the things were called" are really just personal preferences. The poor expression also resulted in the article referring to "PAF force" (like LPG gas, ATM machine, PIN number) that's the "permanent air force force". RAAF permanent force is much simpler and meaningful.

Reference to PAF and CAF may be appropriate to an article on the RAAF or elsewhere but the article on Lloyd Waddy is not the place to propound obscure and unnecessary jargon and military penchant for acronyms favoured by a few special interests. 115.42.13.237 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Both terms are widely used in histories of the RAAF, and are appropriate here. Please stop edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You claim the terms are used widely ... but only in RAAF histories! The terms RAAF permanent force and RAAF reserve are more widely used and more meaningful. The terms PAF and CAF are jargon and not necessary or, given their context, appropriate in an article on Waddy. You have no justifiable argument for your edit and are just exerting personal preference. 115.42.13.237 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

A fair point re. "PAF forces" and have altered accordingly -- but for the rest it's hardly just the "personal preferences" of Nick and myself when a dozen commentators as GAN, MilHist A-Class Review and FAC did not appear to find the article's language burdened by jargon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)