This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Lloyd Waddy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
John Lloyd Waddy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 6, 2015. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reviewer: Jackyd101 ( talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria.
Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. If this came up at FAC I think I'd vote in favour without the need for revisions. All the best.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Lloyd Waddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
"Permanent Air Force" is not the formal name of an organization. There was never a separate organization by that name therefore, it is not the correct term to use, regardless of its incorrect use in any source. "Permanant air force" is certainly not a proper noun to be capitalized. The organization's name is The Royal Australian Air Force and should be referred to as such. The RAAF uses the term "Permanent Air Force" for its internal uses. Therefore, it is the "RAAF's permanent air force". The term "permanent air force" was derived from earlier references to the re-established Australian Army, Australian Air Corps as a "permanent air force"), therefore reference needs to be made to "RAAF" to distinguish it. The description "RAAF permanent air force" or "RAAF's permanent air force" may be appropriate but not "Permanent Air Force" on its own. There is certainly nothing wrong with adding "RAAF" before the term permanent air force.
"Citizens Air Force", similarly, was never an official name, was never the name of a separate organization and is certainly not a proper noun to be capitalized. The organization's name is The Royal Australian Air Force and should be referred to as such. The RAAF uses the term "Reserve" which is widely used and recognized. "Citizens Air Force" was never official or widely used, less still widely recognized. Regardless of whether a source or others incorrectly referred to the RAAF reserve as the "Citizens Air Force" or "CAF", it is not the correct term to use and certainly unnecessary in this article. CAF has other, much better-known uses and derogatory connotations. The article referred to:
therefore, that edit version acknowledged that the term "RAAF reserve" is correct. That the RAAF reserve was "also" referred to as the CAF or some other name by some is superfluous and irrelevant to an article on Lloyd Waddy.
An editor suggested their reversion to the terms PAF and CAF was "per sources" but those sources put the terms in fuller, proper context which is not conveyed in this article. It is therefore inaccurate to say the edit was per sources. One of the cited sources does not use or justify the words of the article. It is not necessary to retain the terminology and wording of a source unless an entire passage is being quoted. Another editor gave excuses (so eloquently) that the terms PAF and CAF "were the titles of those things" and "what the things were called" are really just personal preferences. The poor expression also resulted in the article referring to "PAF force" (like LPG gas, ATM machine, PIN number) that's the "permanent air force force". RAAF permanent force is much simpler and meaningful.
Reference to PAF and CAF may be appropriate to an article on the RAAF or elsewhere but the article on Lloyd Waddy is not the place to propound obscure and unnecessary jargon and military penchant for acronyms favoured by a few special interests. 115.42.13.237 ( talk) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
You claim the terms are used widely ... but only in RAAF histories! The terms RAAF permanent force and RAAF reserve are more widely used and more meaningful. The terms PAF and CAF are jargon and not necessary or, given their context, appropriate in an article on Waddy. You have no justifiable argument for your edit and are just exerting personal preference. 115.42.13.237 ( talk) 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)