Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morotai Mutiny

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:31, 27 September 2008 [1].

---

Morotai Mutiny

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

I'm self-nominating this article for featured status because I believe it meets the criteria. Currently an A-class article on the MILHIST project and GA-class on two other projects. It was peer reviewed before A-class nomination and has recently had a copyedit from a member of the LOCE. I'd previously refrained from nominating purely because it's shorter than many FAs, however 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt and 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing seem to have demonstrated that this is no barrier. All comments welcome. Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Personal preference, but I like to see last access dates for all links, even for courtesy links to online reprints of books. That's just me though, so you don't have to do so. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Excellent article that is well written, comprehensive, and properly cited. A few nitpicks:

• "This wing comprised three Spitfire squadrons, whose pilots included a number of veterans of the North African campaign and the defence of Northern Australia against Japanese air raids." Vagueness.
• "'I believed them all to be sincere in what they were stating and what they had attempted to do. . . Yes, sincerely held beliefs, no matter how ill-founded, coupled possibly with a rather exaggerated sense of national duty.'" Inconsistency: All the other have no spaces between the periods except for this one.
• "Arthur even attempted to secure Cobby's support of the protest." "even" is POV.
• Date linking is deprecated by the MOS.
• "The phrase dated back to the earliest days of the incident, Group Captain Arthur having written it at the top of an aide-mémoire." Change the comma to an em dash, and change "having" to had. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments; I agree with and believe I've actioned all except the last, which I think still reads a bit better as is, unless you feel strongly about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No problem; it's a style thing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support with the proviso that I've made quite a few edits to the article and am not neutral. I think that this article meets all the FA criteria and is probably the best short history of this 'mutiny' available anywhere. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Opening: "The "Morotai Mutiny" was an incident that took place in April 1945, involving members of ...". Now you can remove the comma after "1945", too.
• "Ace" is one of those words where the reader shouldn't have to hit the link to learn what it means. Why pipe it down from "flying ace"? I'd link to the actual title, then find a replacement for "top-scoring" (maybe "top") to avoid ing ing.
• "to protest at—without the preposition, it's loose Americanism.
• I think we need to know, even in the lead, who investigated ("by the ..."). Or even "official inv.".
• "The official history of the RAAF in the Pacific War"—you cite Odgers' second volume six lines later. Is this the official history? I think "Odgers's official history of" is required, or something like that. And why was it "official"? If it was commissioned by the armed forces, you need to include that info in the ref section. Pity he used a redundant "also" in the quote, which looks foolish ("also shared", really, where was the publishing editor, hello?). We assume that "wisely" is the end of the quoted sentence, in the absence of ellipsis dots ... so put the dot after the closing quotes, per MoS.

This is going to be a great read when it's all fixed up. It's written at the moment by editors who are too close to the material; please locate someone (there must be tons of them) who's good at copy-editing and in the field, whether Australian or not. Tony (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Tony. I've actioned the above points re. the intro. Re. a CE by a disinterested party, note that this was commissioned prior to FAC and was undertaken by a member of the LOCE who had no connection with the MILHIST project. In any case, Cla68 has kindly offered to make a further pass at it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As a note, the official history of Australia in World War II (the series was called Australia in the War of 1939–1945) was commissioned by the Government and the official historians were seperate from the military and didn't face any censorship other than on technical details which were still classified at the time of publishing (eg, code breaking and the like). The series remains well regarded for its accuracy and honesty. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I just completed a copyedit of the article [2]. I had no previous involvement with the article apart from reviewing it for A-class a few months ago and I don't live in Australia (or Morotai). Cla68 (talk)

Support. Excellent and informative article that meets the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article. I found it interesting and well-written. Images look good. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang
A few points (that I think can be easily rectified):

• Is 1TAF a proper name for the unit (i.e. an official abbreviation)? I see a "1st T.A.F." in Aftermath... If it is not a proper name, then per WP:MOS, sentences should not start with "1TAF" but with "1st T.A.F." (proper name?) or "First Tactical Air Force".
  • My understanding is that Australian units are properly abbreviated with the digit and acronym, without spaces or full stops, as in "1TAF" - however, as can be seen in the quoted section, this has not rigidly applied, at least not in the Second World War. My preference is to apply a consistent standard in MILHIST articles, which I believe "1TAF" follows, but as to whether "1TAF" or "1st T.A.F." was this unit's 'official' abbreviation in WWII, I couldn't say. Perhaps the simplest way to deal with it is to spell it out as "First Tactical Air Force" in the intro and not bring the 1TAF abbreviation in until the first main section (Background), which also happens to be the only spot it begins a sentence.
    • I think your changes work well. I tweaked another sentence to start it off with a non-numeral.
      • Well-spotted - thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• MOS also discourages section names that start with "the" unless they are proper nouns. Is 'The "mutiny"' a proper noun?
  • I'm aware of that standard; it simply seemed appropriate here to employ the definite article. However, I'm not opposed to changing it to read simply "Mutiny".
    • "Mutiny" is fine.
• I am not certain if "quote boxes" are encouraged or discouraged, can anyone clarify this?
  • I've seen them go through in successful FACs, e.g. George Jones (RAAF officer) - although since that's also one I developed, I could be accused of bias...! Seen them in at least one other recently though, on the main page, just can't recall the name.
    • It is not too much of a biggie to me, but let us leave this up for discussion.
• In my reading of the aforementioned section, I felt Jones and Bostock was professional in their dealings. Hence, it was rather a shock to read in Aftermath that they had a long-standing fuel between them. Furthermore, it is this feud that contributed to the morale problems at the base. I believe that nowhere earlier in this article was this issue raised. It seemed to have been ignored.
  • I think the mention of the feud where it is gives it proper weight, because although some participants and commentators consider it a contributing factor, the inquiry did not find it so, and my expression therefore at this point is only "may have contributed". I didn't see an appropriate way to introduce it earlier without making too big a deal of it - of course I'm open to suggestions.
    • I think it is okay since as you explained it, it was presented as an evidence but was not evaluated as a factor. If possible (and if there was records of the feud between the seniors affecting morale), a brief description could be worked into the Background.

Despite these issues, I believe it is an excellent article. Jappalang (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Jappalang. Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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