Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision/archive1

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 GrahamColm 14:34, 8 August 2014 [1].

---

1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Imagine, if you will, two aircraft colliding in mid-air and, rather than exploding or spinning out of control, they remain locked together in piggyback fashion and continue to fly by virtue of the still-functioning engines of one plane and the control surfaces of the other –- not to mention one pilot's iron nerves! Well, imagine no longer, it happened over the little town of Brocklesby in south-eastern Australia during World War II. Add to this a tragically ironic aftermath and I think we have some ideal Main Page fodder, assuming it passes muster here. Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone.

• Extraordinary event, with a particularly nasty twist in the tail for poor Fuller.
• Good background as well as detail of the accident and the fates of the four airmen involved.
• Referencing looks sound.
• You might want to think about giving slightly more detail for the external links, such as who hosts them. They read as both rather bare and abrupt as currently phrased. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, good point, will do. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - says everything I'd expect it to say and more. To be sure, it's an extremely interesting story. I'll admit thatI did have to look up what a cowling was, so a wikilink there might have been useful, but I know links and wiki-markup in general are discouraged within quotes. Otherwise: excellent! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think sometimes a link in a quote is justified and this may be such a case; if no-one objects I'd be happy to see it there. In any event, thanks for your review and support, Julian. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• You've got two different styles for newspaper refs: FNs 13 and 15, versus FNs 21-22. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've altered the templates/parameters for consistency although it looks like the differing appearance might be due to different info being available, e.g. author in some cases but not others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose. Great article, well done. --John (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Many tks John, and for your edits too. At the risk of looking a gift horse in the mouth, a couple of things: I did like the image of the Ansons in formation at the same size as the gallery in the next section simply for consistency, and it didn't seem to encroach on that following section, but perhaps it's different on your screen; the rejig of the second and last para under Aftermath means we have three sentences in a row beginning with "He", which I always find a bit wearing, so do you think we might have other options there? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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