Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Clare Stevenson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clare Stevenson[edit]
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Nominating this article, on a key figure in the history of women in the Australian military, for ACR because I believe it meets the criteria. Currently GA, whose nomination it went through without any issues having to be addressed. Since then I've made some minor structural changes and added further detail and illustrations. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsThis is an outstanding article, and I think that it may be our first potential A-class article on a woman (which seems long-overdue). I'm close to supporting the article, but I didn't get a feeling of what Stevenson's job as commander of the WAAAF actually involved. Did she have any say on how WAAAFs were allocated and their discipline and wellbeing, or was she in charge of the 'raising and sustaining' side of the organisation? - Would it be possible to provide a short summary of what Stevenson's job description was? As some minor points:- I'll see what I can find in terms of a JD, however I thought I'd addressed her part in recruitment and wellbeing in the second para of Early Challenges... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess what I'm looking for is a clear statement of what powers Stevenson had as director of the WAAAF Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was able to add a short list of responsibilities - best that was available in my sources, I'm afraid. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good enough for me. I also checked all my references and wasn't able to find anything so I agree that the level of information on this topic isn't great (who would have guessed that the men from who wrote the official history in the 1940s-1960s would be sexist and devote astonishingly little space to the WAAAF... ;) ) Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was able to add a short list of responsibilities - best that was available in my sources, I'm afraid. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess what I'm looking for is a clear statement of what powers Stevenson had as director of the WAAAF Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can find in terms of a JD, however I thought I'd addressed her part in recruitment and wellbeing in the second para of Early Challenges... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did Stevenson go to Manila given that WAAFs were banned from deploying overseas?
- I'm a bit confused about the statement that the WRAAF was 'separate to the RAAF'; how did this work?
- As a pedantic note, you should identify that the 2008 edition of the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History is the second edition - I don't think that the origyear field is needed as the 2008 edition isn't a reprint of the 1995 edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, you're talking to the OP - Original Pedant - as Ice-T might've put it, so don't apologise...! I'm happy to put in 2nd Edition, but my understanding of year and origyear is that they're there to differentiate editions, not straightforward reprints, i.e. origyear is the original edition and year is the edition you've employed (perhaps my understanding is wrong). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hardly an expert on this, but I think that the use of the 'edition' field gets around that. The 2008 edition of the Companion claims that many of the articles in from the 1995 edition have been altered or totally re-written and lots of new entries were added, so there seems to be a strong case to consider it a substantial break from the 1995 edition. I'm not fussed either way though! Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, you're talking to the OP - Original Pedant - as Ice-T might've put it, so don't apologise...! I'm happy to put in 2nd Edition, but my understanding of year and origyear is that they're there to differentiate editions, not straightforward reprints, i.e. origyear is the original edition and year is the edition you've employed (perhaps my understanding is wrong). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments No problems reported with the external links, but one disambig link was identified. That link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - references check and look squeaky clean, and I can't find anything to
complaincomment about. Good work! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Support comments addressed. This is an excellent article. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.