Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 33 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 User:GrahamColm 10:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC).

No. 33 Squadron RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A companion piece to my recent nomination for No. 36 Squadron RAAF, employing similar structure and sources, this article focusses on Australia's sole air-to-air refuelling unit. It operated Boeing 707s for many years and has just finished re-equipping with aircraft from the other big commercial jet stable, Airbus. Thanks to all who took part in the article's GAN and MilHist ACR earlier this year, and in advance to all who take the time to comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Image review:
 * File:33SqnRAAFCrest.jpg = locally hosted image, appropriate fair use rationale on image page, image checks out okay.
 * File:RAAF Aircraftswoman providing a safety brief onboard a KC-30.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, public domain licensed, image checks out alright.
 * File:No. 33 Sqn Dragon (AWM P01877.004).jpg = image hosted on Commons, appropriately licensed as public domain, image checks out okay.
 * File:RAAF EB-707 (33 Sqn) refuelling a US Navy F-A-18 Hornet (VFA-131).jpg = image hosted on Commons, licensed as public domain, checks out alright.
 * File:RAAF707-A20-261.jpg = hosted on Commons, licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0, checks out okay.
 * File:RAAF (A39-002) Airbus KC-30A (A330-203MRTT) on display at the 2013 Avalon Airshow.jpg = image hosted on Commons, licensed with "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Australia license", image checks out alright. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I agree with quality of prose in assessment by, above. My only quibble is I'd suggest breaking up some of the larger paragraphs in twain, such as in the sect Post-war re-establishment, and perhaps also in the lede 2nd paragraph just to give it a bit more readability for the reader. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Many tks for image check and review/support, Cirt -- I've split two of the larger paras. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, and good, looks a bit better. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment – a very well-written article. Just got a few points.
 * Link initial operating capability.
 * Well there you go, I didn't even look for that link it seemed so esoteric -- but then what's WP for if not esoteria...? :-) Tks for finding it.
 * Remove "Joint Strike Fighter", or replace it with "stealth fighter". Besides, "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter" is quite lengthy.
 * Fair enough.
 * "and AV-8 Harriers, as well as RAF Harrier" – as the primary contributor of AV-8B, I have to say that there are substantial differences between the AV-8B/BAE Harrier II and the first-generation Harrier. Could you work "AV-8B Harrier II" and "RAF Harrier II" into the sentence? For consistency, you should include their manufacturers in the links.
 * Tks for pointing out that the RAF Harrier should've been linked to the British model, since not linking it implied it was the same model as the AV-8, which we did link. I didn't spell out manufacturers in the case to reduce detail in a fairly long sentence but I'm happy to do so for consistency, as you suggest. I'd prefer not to spell out marks as the sources aren't that specific.
 * FN 5–7, 13, 15, 23, 25, 28 and 30: you should use the "|volume=" and "|=issue" parameters. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, aware of those parameters but I don't find them very useful. "Vol. 47, No. 2", for example, comes out "47 (2)". I've used the format in this article in similar FAs and it hasn't been a problem as long as it's been internally consistent. Tks for reviewing, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Volume/issue shouldn't be italicized, and be consistent in whether these are followed by a period or colon
 * Mmm, this didn't come up in a couple of recent RAAF unit articles where I did the same thing, but I do agree with you that they shouldn't in fact be italicised. OTOH, per last response to Phil above, the volume/issue parameters don't help much as far as I'm concerned. I could trick the template by putting italics markup around "Vol. nn, No. nn" in the title field, or I could just drop the the bloody volume/number since in all cases the publication date uniquely identifies the issue anyway. Any opinion?
 * Check alphabetization of References
 * Odgers title is quite different between Notes and References
 * FN29: this is actually an article from a longer journal as opposed to an independent document
 * 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All others done, I think. Tks as always, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: looks good, Ian, I had a look at this earlier during the ACR and I see it has been improved since then. I only have one suggestion:
 * "The last one in service, an ex-Qantas jet named "Richmond Town", flew low over Sydney on 30 June in the company of smaller aircraft filming its flight, which gave rise to fear in some quarters that a 9/11-style terrorist attack was in progress." I wonder if a little more context could be added. What I mean is, obviously it wasn't intended to make the public think that it was a terrorist attack, so perhaps we could mention what purpose the flight was meant to have? It probably only needs a couple of words added to the sentence. Regards, AustrailanRupert (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, I hope I've taken care of that now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.