Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 36 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 10:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC).

No. 36 Squadron RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of Nick-D's successful nomination for No. 38 Squadron, I present another transport formation whose duties were at times so closely entwined with those of No. 38 that the two squadrons occasionally operated as one. No. 36 Squadron is Australia's heavy airlift unit, operating the biggest asset in the RAAF's inventory, the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. It was also the first squadron outside the US to fly the venerable Lockheed C-130 Hercules, which it employed for almost 50 years. The "trashies" (trash haulers) may not have a particularly glamorous job, but they do have a vital and, I think, interesting one. Tks to all involved in the recent GA and MilHist A-Class reviews and, in advance, to all those taking part here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

COMMENTS generated by a first reading:
 * In the lead, the red-linked 91st Composite Wing leaves the reader wondering how it is composite; has it mixed types of aircraft? is it an interservice and/or international unit? Greater clarity here would be welcome for the lay reader.
 * First interpretation is correct, as the redlinked article (currently under development) will explain. If you feel it raises too many questions then rather than clutter the lead with an explanation I think I'd rather just use "No. 90 Wing" (in which case I'd probably better alter "No. 86 (Transport) Wing" to "No. 86 Wing" for consistency).
 * Looks like a reasonable solution. Details of the wing(s) concerned will be at the other end of the links.
 * 27 March 1943 crash: Phrase "...four crew and nineteen passengers, twenty of whom..." leads to some strange mental maths. Is there minus one death among passengers, or was one passenger serving as a crew member? I suppose there were more than 23 aboard, but that remains murky. Please consider rewording.
 * Well, four crew and nineteen passengers add up to twenty-three occupants, and twenty of those twenty-three were RAAF/WAAAF. It reads okay to me but if you think it's confusing I can just say twenty-three occupants without breaking down into crew/passengers (I think that'd be more detail than necessary).
 * As you have access to the source, and I don't, you know the details. However, obviously one individual cannot be both passenger and crew, and a female crew member is extremely unlikely, given the era.
 * Noted as fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The squadron achieved a total of 200,000 accident-free flying hours in C-130s in 1984." Did they fly those 200,000 hours within that single year? Or did they fly 200,000 hours by that year? If the latter, then a small but vital change in wording seems indicated, to "...C-130s by 1984."
 * Likewise: "In 1990, the squadron achieved 100,000 accident-free flying hours on the C-130H."
 * No, it's total hours, not yearly hours. I understand where you're coming from but "by [year]" to me sounds like it had achieved the figure as the year began. Does "during [year]" make it clearer?
 * How about "reached during [year]"?
 * Noted as fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More later. "I shall return!"Georgejdorner (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks George! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

COMMENTS from a second reading: SUPPORT For Featured Article
 * In lead, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III would benefit from being hashmarked to connect to the RAAF under [Operational history].
 * I do have Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service under the See also section so I felt it was fair enough to simply link to the aircraft article elsewhere...
 * Is it done to have the See alsos at the top of the article?
 * However, as you point out, there is a valid link.
 * Likewise, in lead, Indonesia–Malaysia Konfrontasi could be hashmarked down to "Australia" under "Commonwealth Order of Battle". In that case, the addition of 36 Squadron to said Order of Battle seems in order.
 * Well, I feel the link is there to provide more info about the conflict and they'll learn more about it from the main article...
 * One of the things they will "learn" is that 36 Squadron did not serve in the Confrontation, because it is not referred to in that article.
 * The squadron wasn't based in the theatre of operations, but it did fly there, as evidenced by the source, which specifically mentions the Confrontation and the squadron's part in it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A similar case, but more complex: link in lead to Vietnam War could be hashmarked down to "Other countries' involvement/Pro-Saigon/Australia and New Zealand". However, it would be more particular if linked to Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War, then hashmarked down to "Australia's military involvement/Increased Australian commitment, 1965–1970". In either case, or even if not hashmarked, mention of 36 Squadron should be inserted into article.
 * Similar to my response above, I think that going down too deeply turns the link into an Easter egg, but a fair compromise given the scope of the conflict would probably be to simply link to Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War, which I've now done.
 * Again, I doubt the utility of a link to an article where 36 Squadron is not mentioned. However, I view the link as valid if the mention of 36 is inserted in the target article.
 * Again, given the sources explicitly connect the squadron with the war, even though it was never actually based in Vietnam (like 35 Sqn was, for instance) I think this article is the one being reviewed, and its success or failure here shouldn't be prejudiced by what is or isn't in other articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not my intent, cobber. This article is what it is.
 * Similar linking for Iraqi and Afghani wars is recommended.
 * Actually I'd already linked the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts to the relevant articles on Australian involvement.
 * You are correct in noting that you do mention the squadron's participation in the above conflicts. My personal experience in working order of battle in MI seems to have clouded my views.
 * I have also caught grief over failing to post return links from articles, and thought I should bring it up on behalf of the community. You and I seem to be in a minority that believes that information need not be repeated at both ends of a link.
 * Need a break. I'll return.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P. S. Out of curiosity, do you have any idea why the RAAF does not operate a C-130 gunship?
 * Many tks for support, George. I don't remember coming across anything about the RAAF even considering a C-130 gunship when Nick-D and I were researching/writing Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service; in Vietnam, and afterwards, the Australian military's focus was helicopter gunships. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also never seen any suggestion that this would be a useful capacity for the RAAF. The US military is the only operator of C-130s which has converted any to gunships - even Britain hasn't done this despite having a large C-130 fleet and a large army forces deployed in combat zones since the 1990s. The only sub-variants I've seen references to the RAAF considering were taking out options for some KC-130J tankers (which were never purchased, probably as they would have been inferior to the KC-30 which were ordered a few years later) and the secretive conversion of one of the C-130Hs to a signals intelligence aircraft (sometimes designated as an EC-130H). Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments I reviewed this in the ACR, and was involved in developing two of the articles on closely related topics to FA status. I have the following comments Support All my comments are now addressed. Please feel free to tweak the heading of the first section back if you con't think my change was an improvement :) Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Heavier logistical support" might be a bit obscure: how about "more complex servicing" or the like? (it seems that the RAAF handles the day-to-day maintenance tasks needed to keep the aircraft flying, while Boeing handles the periodic inspections and major servicing as well as any large-scale repairs)
 * Okay by me.
 * "a squadron detachment" - could this be simplified to just "a detachment" without any loss of detail?
 * Funny, I thought I'd written simply "detachment" before and you'd added "squadron" during an earlier copyedit -- must've been someone else! Needless to say, happy to remove it...
 * "were responsible for delivering" -> "delivered" seems simpler and more accurate given that this is about what they achieved
 * Yep, why not.
 * Do we know why it was decided to "upgrade" No. 30 Transport Unit to a squadron? I presume that this was due to its large size and significant role. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm afraid your guess is as good as mine, Nick. While I've been drafting No. 91 Wing RAAF I found something in the Korean War section of Going Solo that connected the redesignation with the transfer of four Dakotas from 38 Sqn in Malaya to Korea, but Stephens has got his dates wrong there, as the transfer happened in November 1950 (which oddly enough he mentions in the book's Malayan Emergency section and which I confirmed by checking the 30 Comms Unit / 30 Transport Unit / 36 Sqn ops book).
 * Tks for reviewing Nick, though I think "current" is implied strongly enough in the first section not to need it in the header, as it isn't needed anywhere in the infobox (nor in a similar section in the recent 2OCU Featured Article). Just sayin'... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Treatment of journals/magazines seems a bit inconsistent: compare FN37 (issue: page) and 58 ((issue): page) and 59 (issue. page). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Support -- This article, like much of Ian's work, meets all of the FA criteria and is deserving of the FA status. I've got no objections. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.