Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 38 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:Ian Rose 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

No. 38 Squadron RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No. 38 Squadron is a Royal Australian Air Force transport unit which has achieved the longest period of period of continual operation of any of the service's flying squadrons. Since being formed in 1943 it has served overseas in World War II, the Malayan Confrontation and the rather odd Operation Pig Bristle, trained aircrew for service in Vietnam and contributed aircraft to several peacekeeping deployments. It flew the highly capable DHC-4 Caribou aircraft for 45 years, and is currently equipped with light transports on an interim basis.

This article was assessed as a GA in June, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review later that month. I've since expanded and copy edited it and am hopeful that it also meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks today; please check you are happy with those. I reviewed this article at A-class and am happy with the changes made since then. The images seem appropriately licenced; the article is well referenced, comprehensively covers the topic, and is well written, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * FN27: formatting doesn't match other short cites
 * One instance of Weston Creek includes state, while the other doesn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki - I've just fixed both those problems. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for those changes, and the review. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * I reviewed this at ACR and am comfortable it is fairly close to meeting the FA criteria. Some minor points:
 * 1(a) well-written:
 * This phrase seems to only make half the point: "A Caribou was deployed to Pakistan from 1975 to 1978 to support United Nations peacekeepers...", perhaps consider: "A Caribou was deployed to Pakistan from 1975 to 1978 to support United Nations peacekeepers in the country..." (suggestion only)
 * I think that might be unnecessary detail for the lead, especially as it operated in both India and Pakistan Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed no that you mention it. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't quite sound right to my ear: "From 17 July 1945 the squadron maintained a Morotai Island detachment..." consider perhaps: "From 17 July 1945 the squadron maintained a detachment at Morotai Island..."
 * Agreed, and changed Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1(b) comprehensive:
 * "While the squadron continued to fly to locations within Australia after receiving Dakotas, it also began transporting supplies to Allied forces in western New Guinea..." Perhaps add they were engaged in operations against the Japanese (for context)?
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "No. 38 Squadron's only loss during World War II was a Dakota that crashed on a mountain in western New Guinea..." Do we know why? (mechanical failure or enemy action)? If its not in the sources then that's fine.
 * No source says this. Given that the aircraft disappeared without a trace and wasn't discovered for 30 years I imagine that the cause of the loss is not known - it could have been a mechanical fault, bad weather, crew error or some combination of those factors. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Overall, twenty members of No. 86 Wing were sent to Europe; the resulting shortage of personnel forced Nos. 36 and 38 Squadrons to operate for a period as a single unit, with all flying hours being attributed to No. 38 Squadron in official records." One Australian was killed during the Berlin Airlift (a co-pilot flying a York if I recall), not sure if he was one of those seconded though or if he was on exchange (probably the latter). If he was from 86 Wing it might make sense to mention here, if not then the level of coverage is sufficient. (probably a red herring I admit)
 * The RAAF Dakota pilots seem to have only been posted to RAF Dakota units, so he probably wasn't from this squadron. At the time there was a Commonwealth-manned VIP squadron equipped with Yorks in the RAF, as well as a pool of other York-qualified Australian pilots. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, fairly sure that was the case. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some context might be helpful here: "From August to October 1975, a No. 38 Squadron Caribou was assigned to transport Red Cross supplies and personnel from Darwin to East Timor." Why? Perhaps half a sentence to mention the civil war that occurred following Portugal effectively abandoning the colony after the 1974 revolution?
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Context here to: "From 1999 until early 2001, elements of No. 38 Squadron, designated No. 86 Wing Detachment C, were stationed in East Timor and supported the international peacekeeping force deployed there..." perhaps add something like "following the violence in the wake of its independence from Indonesia" or something similar?
 * Done 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1(c) well-researched: no issues here - I've spot checked the fol refs:
 * 2: "RAAF Historical Section (1995), p. 67" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
 * 3: "Eather (1995), p. 76" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
 * 13: ""38 Squadron RAAF". Units. Australian War Memorial. Archived from the original on 20 May 2007. Retrieved 1 June 2013." - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
 * 14: "Dennis and Grey (1996), p. 25" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
 * 43: "Wilson (2003), p. 25" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
 * 57: "RAAF C-27J buy confirmed". Australian Aviation. 10 May 2012. Archived from the original on 19 May 2012. Retrieved 1 June 2013." - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
 * Thank you very much for these spot checks
 * No problem, by a happy co-incidence I happen to own these books. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1(d) neutral: no issues here - article seems to present subject in a balanced manner.
 * 1(e) stable: no issues here - all recent changes appear to be constructive
 * 2(a) a lead: no issues here - lead is a little short but summarizes all key points lead is fine given the length of the article (3 paras is within guidelines)
 * 2(b) appropriate structure: yes, one minor point:
 * Placement of the commons template is incorrect, per the template documentation at Template:Commons_category the template should not be placed "in a section containing columns without floating left..." and that it should be in the External links section or "at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists". As such I recommend moving it to the "works consulted" sub section.
 * (Belatedly) fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2(c) consistent citations: yes
 * 3.Media - images look fine to me (I am however no expert)
 * 4.Length - article is succinct and covers all key points. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR but have gone through it again from top to bottom for FAC. Apart from a couple of minor points that I actioned, I think the info is all good and sufficiently detailed; refs show a good overview of available literature. Let me know if any issues with my prose tweaks. I don't believe images have changed since ACR and they all looked properly licensed to me then; I'd suggest lining them all up on the right so the subject aircraft all face 'inwards' but that's a minor aesthetic quibble. Good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for those comments Ian. I see your point about the aircraft photos, but I think that staggering them is the lesser of the two evils here given that it makes the article a bit more attractive (IMO!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Support – There is no reason to oppose as the article meets all the FA criteria relating to how well it is written and its compliance with the MOS, and there are no outstanding issues with the length and the media files. In addition, all the references have been archived to protect it from link rot. All in all, a great article. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Phil. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.