Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 1 Squadron RAAF/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

No. 1 Squadron RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Seemed appropriate now that the centenary of World War I is upon us to nominate this article on the RAAF's premier squadron, formed under the Australian Flying Corps in 1916. It's been active almost continually since then, and operated the formidable F-111 for 37 years, but the last time it saw action was during the Malayan Emergency -- that is of course unless the Australian government acts on suggestions to deploy Super Hornets to the Middle East, in which case it'd be a foregone conclusion that personnel and aircraft from this unit would form the commitment. As deployment is still only speculation, through, I haven't mentioned it in the text as yet. Tks to everyone who's contributed to the article through their edits and/or reviews, especially its recent MilHist A-Class assessment, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: A decision to deploy as many as eight of the squadron's Super Hornets has now been made, and the article updated accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK ( 2 points Done) Other images are all OK. CC "own work", PD-Australia (point A) and PD-USGov. Sources and authors (where known) provided. GermanJoe (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:1SqnRAAFCrest.png - rationale for identification is OK, but the information should include the current copyright owner (per fair-use policy). The source website is under "© Commonwealth of Australia 2012", probably with all its content? Suggest to use Template:non-free use rationale (optional, but helps to keep the information structured).
 * Added copyright details. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:RAAF_Canberra_(AWM_128866).JPG - exact year is unknown, but could you add an estimated date of creation? We need to be sure, it is pre-1955 (or meets one of the other PD-Australia points).
 * Yes, there's practically no information from the source so I'm just offering reasonably well-informed opinion here that would support the AWM's declaration of PD: the tailfin flash suggests the aircraft belongs to No. 2 Squadron (try as I might I found no images of No. 1 Squadron Canberras); No. 2 Squadron equipped with Canberras in 1953 and deployed to Vietnam in 1967, when its colour scheme was changed from silver to camouflage, so we can estimate the photo was taken between 1953 and 1967. That being the case I think we can safely assume the PD status is due to it being taken before 1955 (PD-Australia clauses A/B), or between 1955 and 1969 under Commonwealth auspices (PD-Australia clause E). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I polished those two a bit and added your background info on the estimated date of creation. All OK now. GermanJoe (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks again, Joe -- good to see you back at FAC BTW! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Joe, I just added a new image under Role and equipment -- would you be so kind as to verify licensing so everything's above board? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Flickr has a different license for this image, but that's not our problem. The image clearly meets "PD-USAF" requirements and is OK GermanJoe (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Belated tks, Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * No citations to Isaacs. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Gratefully removed -- this has to be one of the longest ref lists I've ever employed... Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support A few minor nitpicks: Excellent article, well done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * a bit of overlinking: Sinai_and_Palestine_Campaign, Frank_McNamara_(VC), Victoria_Cross, RAAF_Base_Amberley, No._82_Wing_RAAF, Far_East_Air_Force_(Royal_Air_Force), Boeing_Australia, Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet, and McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet.
 * I did that deliberately as the initial links are from the Role and equipment section up the top and the History section in which the dups appear is on the longish side. OTOH if you as someone more detached than myself from the article think the dups aren't necessary then I'm happy to remove them.
 * suggest using refbegin and refend templates for the long References list
 * Heh, I'll admit I'm not a fan of miniscule references (short cites in the Notes section aren't so bad) so I'd rather leave them unless the consensus is to reduce them... :-)
 * did some spotchecks of sources, all good
 * Always good to have that every so often, tks.
 * Many tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments I've contributed a bit to this article over the years, as well as to closely related topics, so I don't think that I'm uninvolved enough to vote. I think that the article is of a very high standard though. It's it's helpful, I'd like to offer the following comments for consideration:
 * The article doesn't currently seem to note why the F-111s were delayed (and were No. 1 Squadron personnel the unfortunate airmen sent to the US to train on the F-111s only to have to return home without them?)
 * Added a line on the delay; Lax and Stephens don't seem to spend much time on the impact it had the expectant pilot trainees.
 * The material on the introduction of the F-111 is focused mainly on the maintenance arrangements. While this is important, and part of the squadron's history, you could also weave in some material from Lax about how they were initially used (very carefully!), and how this evolved over time Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the evolution bit might be too much to go into but did add a line about the initial caution exercised, via order straight from the top. :-) Tks for looking the article over, Nick, and your contribution to its development. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * just one little question in the World War II section ....giving it a strength of 25 aircraft; at one stage it was to be renumbered as an RAF squadron, but this never eventuated.[89] as an RAF? or as a RAF which to me reads easier Gnangarra 10:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you've got me there... I'm used to treating it as if the initials are being pronounced but I've seen it written both ways. Do you happen to know if there's a MOS standard to follow?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont have an answer hence the question, as you correctly point out treating as initials R-A-F rather than colloquial word "raf" makes an the correct option. Though I suppose it could worded as ...was to be renamed as a squadron of the RAF, but... to bypass the question. Either way its so minor forget I asked very interesting read and its ready to be featured. Gnangarra 06:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * The details on the Super Hornet in the role and equipment section strike me as a bit too much, and even a bit too "rah-rah" when talking about engaging aerial and surface targets simultaneously. I'd delete everything beginning with its 20 mm armament up to the servicing details.
 * Well I think it's worth saying something about the armaments employed and the aircraft's capabilities, because that obviously has a bearing on the squadron's capabilities. The bit about simultaneous targeting in the air and on the ground seemed to follow naturally from mentioning the role of the second crew member. I mean I could've gone into much more detail on speed, range, the types and models of bombs and missiles carried, the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, and so on, but I thought that would indeed have been too much.
 * The whole bit seemed rather reminiscent of an official press release, IMO. Consider some rephrasing, but I'll support since it's really a matter of taste.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Sturm. Quite understand we're you're coming from. Nothing comes to mind right now as far as rephrasing goes, but I'm sure given the squadron's continuing involvement in Iraq, the article won't be far from my thoughts for some time so you never know... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "eventuated" more common in AusEng than it is in AmEnglish? It strikes me as rather pretentious as I think of it as one of those passive verbs used to distance the action from the actor. I'd suggest a simple "happened" or "occurred".
 * No prob, will do.
 * Aside from these minor quibbles, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks for looking it over Sturm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the article is brilliantly written. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.