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 16:52, 19 February 2012 [1].

---

John Balmer[edit]

John Balmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/John Balmer/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After my recent naval sortie with the Hector Waller FAC, time for another pilot. However, while the services may have differed, John Balmer has more than a little in common with Hec Waller: both were professionals who joined the armed forces before World War II; both attained similar ranks; and both seemed destined for prominent post-war roles in the Australian military before being killed in action. For further context, Balmer preceded William Brill, whom some might recall from a FAC last year, as commanding officer of No. 467 Squadron RAAF during the air war in Europe. This is a bit shorter than either Waller's or Brill's articles but, given Balmer lived an even briefer life, I don't think it's lacking in any detail -- except how he got his nickname, for which I apologise in advance... ;-) This has passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews, the latter including a spotcheck with Earwig but, oddly enough, no explicit image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Images all fine per pre-1955 Australia rule
• be consistent in use of "Retrieved" vs "Retrieved on"
  • Tks for finding the one that slipped through... ;-)
• Compare FNs 21 and 22
  • Tks for that too.
• Allen & Unwin: Sydney or North Sydney?
  • Definitely North Sydney for one that I have. Will ping Nick-D to confirm the other, which he added.
    • I added the reference to Whispering death. The publishing details page identifies Allen & Unwin as being both in Sydney in the list of cities where the firm has offices and Crows Nest (a suburb of Sydney) in the specific publishing details, so I went with Sydney. However, the National Library of Australia uses Crows Nest in its record for the book. The State Library of NSW uses 'Crows Nest' for its record for the hard copy of the book (which I what I consulted) and 'Sydney' for the ebook edition... I'd say that using 'Sydney' makes more sense, but either option works. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I might use Crow's Nest then as I tend to take the specific suburb if one is given. As I've mentioned to Nikki before, A&U has used St Leonards, Crows Nest, and North Sydney in its time, which could even be the same office with boundary changes over the years as the three locations are in such close proximity. Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't the ADB be italicized? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tell me -- it's a book series title, but since I'm citing the online version the context here is the website, which I thought wouldn't be italicised. In any case, tks for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My inclination would be to italicize (online version of print source), but I'll leave it to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I reviewed this article's GA and A class nominations, and I think that the FA criteria are now also met. My only comment is that it's a bit odd to say that a military pilot in a combat zone "took three weeks sick leave" - it's my understanding that they don't have much choice about this kind of thing (as the flight surgeon won't allow them to fly and orders that they stand down), while the use of 'took' implies that he had a choice in the matter. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, yes, sounds more like a normal work situation the way I have it, eh? What about "went on" instead of "took"? Tks for review/spt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That works for me. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks (disclaimers: no spotchecks, MilHist member). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any idea why he was nicknamed "Sam"?
  • As I mentioned in the nom text, unfortunately not. As you see, I've combed quite a few books and articles and though just about all employ his nickname somewhere, not one gives its origin. My guess is that none of them know either... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh, why is it always the times that I don't read the nom statement that this happens? Ah well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What's a "B" course?
  • The reservist's flying course, as opposed to the permanent air force candidates' "A" course. I can clarify that.
• Where is Point Cook?
  • Mentioned "RAAF Station Point Cook, Victoria" in first para of Early Life.
• "Sarang Tebuan Jangan Dijolok" - what language is this?
  • Fair question. Malayan I should think, but will check/add.
• "as came in to land" - grammar
  • Hmm, tks.
• Spell out "%" in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Tks for all that, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I reviewed this article at DYK almost a year ago, and am quite impressed with it. One quibble though: I bet there's a few due/owing to errors in the article; esp. when the antecedent of it is another verb than 'to be'. They're in effect the same now, but I think that in an FA this should be paid attention to. --Eisfbnore ^talk 13:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I have been picked up on that before -- will check. Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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