Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paterson Clarence Hughes/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Hughes was the highest-scoring Australian ace in the Battle of Britain, achieving seventeen victories in less than two months of combat. Beyond the air fighting, though, this is a bit of a love story, as Hughes' English bride Kay figures prominently in the key sources. Thanks Cliftonian, AustralianRupert and Anotherclown for their helpful comments at the recent GA and Milhist A-Class reviews, and in advance to everyone who stops by here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Paterson_Clarence_Hughes_1936_(AWM_P00835.001).JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks for checking, Nikki. AWM doesn't say, but then nor does it for File:Paterson Clarence Hughes 1940.jpg so curious why that one isn't problematic also... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically both should have details on original publication. I'm less concerned about the other one because (a) it has been republished far more widely - I actually was not able to find copies of this one elsewhere, although there may be, and (b) this one is identified as a studio portrait (which means it is more likely to have had a commercial owner and is not likely to have been immediately published). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Granted, although government agencies can credit the actual photographers and studios of works they commission, but in any case we have the declaration from the AWM of unrestricted PD, so why not simply re-tag as CC0 1.0? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that's an alternative option in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tks Nikki, just to confirm, is that the {{cc-zero}} tag? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • {{PD-because}} might actually be a better option in this case, just because of the wording of the cc-zero tag - the former allows you to more clearly specify the reasoning for the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi Nikki, I've had a go at this now if you'd be able to check, since I've not used the tag before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I reviewed and passed this for GA and am comfortable supporting it for FA as well. It is well-written, properly and clearly sourced and laid out, and well illustrated. Images are all PD and properly licenced. The foe-by-foe combat record is a great touch. Thank you, Ian, for this fine article on a fine man. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, John -- I was fortunate in that Australian Air Aces presented just such a table, and other sources provided additional verification for each result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article of very high standard; not much for me to comment on, and I'm inclined to support in its current state, but a few things for you to look at first, even if you don’t change anything:

Early life

• "young Pat": A little relaxed – especially with the use of his first name
  • That's me in my occasional folksy mood... ;-) Open to suggestions -- "the youth" perhaps?
    • That would work for me - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually since we talk about other people (the father and Banjo Paterson) in the previous sentence, I thought it best we keep the youth's name, though I dropped "young" as agreed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early RAF service

• You use the name Pat Hughes in the quote too: this could be trimmed to Hughes
  • Done.

Legacy

• "Flying Officer Butch had run out of the mess": FOB ran out of the mess
• You could also link to mess too, for some who don't know military parlance
  • Done both.

Combat record

• Is there any need to columns saying RAF and Spitfire, as these are constant? You could have an introductory sentence before the table with this
  • A fair point and one that occurred to me as well (I think the table was in this form when I discovered the article). I thought it might be worth leaving the "Flying" column as some tables like this list the aircraft serial number for each victory, and although I don't have that info in all cases for Hughes, it may come to light some time. There'd certainly be no harm in removing the "Service" column though, as there's nothing more to be added to that (not even unit, as all victories were with 234 Sqn).
    • I'd be happy with that - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be worth a word of explanation as to why there are two entries on the table that are un-numbered in the first column, and possibly to put an en dash in there to show it's meant to be un-numbered. Just a thought, anyway.
  • The main source, Newton, just left them blank, but I don't mind adding the dash if you think it works better.
    • I think that's possibly a good idea - people may think that the blanks are later additions, or need to have their numbering re-jigged, without realising exactly why they are blank. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me – an excellent and interesting read and thanks for the nudge to read it. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'll leave it to your choice on the table - it's crtainly not a deal-breaker on my support either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've seen this one develop through B class, GA and then ACR. I've really enjoyed reading this article and seeing it get steadily better. I believe that it is up to Ian's usual standard now, but have the following comments by way of a review: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• there are no dabs, and the external links all work;
• I believe the article is well written and nothing stood out to me as being grammatically incorrect;
• Distinguished Flying Cross is a duplicate link in the lead, but it is probably acceptable in the situation (i.e. the post nominal and then the first full mention);
• the article is well referenced, using reliable sources and seems broad in its referencing base and coverage. Nothing stands out as unsourced to me;
• the images all have alt text;
• I wonder if the word "fitter" should be linked;
  • Done.
• source review: I checked Garrison p. 140 and p. 35 and was happy that they support the information for which they are used as citations;
• the web citation to "Hughes, Paterson Clarence – Casualty File" probably could have the National Archives listed as the publisher;
  • Done.
• "Cooma-Monaro Shire Council": potentially should have an endash;
  • Done.
• in the Notes, the link to the Australian War Memorial appears in Ref # 72, but it should appear on first mention (Ref # 71).
  • ...and done.
  • Great work, Ian. Good luck with your travels overseas and enjoy! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks very much, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  • I reviewed at ACR and believe it meets the FAC criteria.
  • Ref spot checks:
    • I completed checks on two of the Newton sources (1990 and 1996) (selected because as I own copies). These are fns # 5, 8, 20, 31, 34, 47, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 70, 79, and 81. All seem to support the information cited with no issues of close paraphrase that I could see. Anotherclown (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much appreciated, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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