Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Valston Hancock

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Valston Hancock[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock and Murdoch. Frederick Scherger went through ACR/FAC a while back, and now it’s time for the rest. Among my earliest articles on senior RAAF commanders, John McCauley, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch have been B/GA-Class till recently (all are GA now), so I decided to expand and improve them in tandem, given the additional sources that have come my way since I created them. It therefore seemed appropriate to put them up for ACR at the same time and, given their similarities, you might like to review them in tandem as well... ;-)

Seriously, it shouldn’t be too bad: after Duntroon, they all joined the RAAF before World War II, saw action during the war, and went on to higher command and eventually the top of the Air Force in the 1950s and 60s. McCauley’s and Hancock’s tours as Chief were separated by Fred Scherger. Comparing those three, McCauley could be seen as the most reserved and cerebral, Scherg as the most dynamic and forthright, and Hancock somewhere between those two poles. Murdoch was the last of the quartet and somewhat the odd one out, not graduating from Duntroon as an Army officer and then volunteering for the RAAF like the others, but entering the college under an RAAF cadet scheme and transferring services before graduation due to economic cutbacks. Plus his legacy is generally considered a negative one for the Air Force, blamed as he is for the service losing its control of battlefield helicopters to the Army in the 1980s. His predecessors are remembered more positively, McCauley for focussing on Australia’s northern defences, Scherg for carrying that a step further by initiating a string of ‘bare bases’ up north and also for ordering the Mirage fighter, and Hancock for picking the fledgling F-111 as the top bomber of its era. Anyway, enough of the intro – thanks in advance for your input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. he had instead been earmarked for the artillary Spelling error here.
    • Oops, tks.
  2. Was Hancock responsible for the purchase of the Hercs and Cariboux?
    • The Herc was recommended by Murdoch and endorsed by McCauley (as CAS) in 1954, and the order pushed through by Scherg when he was CAS around 1957-58 (the first arrived in 1959). Oddly, my sources seem relatively silent on just who advocated/ordered the Caribou, though it could well have been Hancock since it arrived 3 years after he became CAS.
      • Heh, that's another reason these reviews are so valuable -- out of the curiosity you piqued with your question, I re-checked Stephens and lo, there was a reference I'd missed. It was indeed, one way or another, Hancock who ordered it, but not without some shoving... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Was it the case that Duntroon (and later Point Cook) graduates were favoured for high command? Or was this just coincidence?
    • They were favoured for staff positions (to their annoyance in some cases) and having those positions on their CVs seems to have been a factor in selection for higher command. It's something I was going to go into in my "Former Duntroon cadets in the RAAF" article, if I ever get round to finishing it... ;-)
  4. I am surprised that Hancock published an autobiography, but you have not used it.
    • Well I did the same thing with George Jones and Richard Williams in their A/FA articles and it seemed to be accepted. My rationale in these cases is that there's enough data for a good summary of their lives without their autobiographies and, while they'd no doubt be great stuff there, I'd be in danger of overbalancing the article with personal comments/perspectives. The other thing is that in all these cases their works have been extensively used as sources in more general works that I have relied on, e.g. Coulthard-Clark and Stephens, so they're not ignored.
  5. I always mention where someone's papers are, if they are in an archive.
    • I have to admit I tend to bypass papers unless they're digitised but happy to take a look at NAA for his. Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Barely anything to comment on, really. The few nitpicks i do have are below. Very nice piece of work—I hope to see it at FAC in the near future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the same comments for Murdoch apply here: my mention of POSTNOM, the sandwhiching of the text between the infobox and the image
    • Any idea what the OBE was for?
      • Thanks HJ, you'll certainly see it at FAC I hope! Addressed postnom thing under Murdoch ACR, same with image (only thing I could do is make it smaller but then you see very little detail); neither Gazette not Aust War Memorial honours search say why for the OBE I'm afraid; re. "Val", we discussed on the William Brill article and parentheses is more consistent with similar articles I've been involved in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - again only a few minor points:
    • "after completing of his term as CAS", could this be reworded more simply as "after completing his term as CAS"?
    • overlink of Lang Hancock (linked in Early career and again in Later life sections).
    • citation off here also "Helson, Ten Years at the Top, p. 238–239" (should be pp as its a date range). Anotherclown (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tks for reviewing, AC, and for pointing out those oversights. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Valston_Hancock&oldid=1075714294"