Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 79 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011.

No. 79 Squadron RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This article covers the history and current role of one of the Royal Australian Air Force's most interesting squadrons. No. 79 Squadron saw combat in World War II between 1943 and 1945, was reformed to be deployed to Thailand for six years during the Cold War, was briefly active as a fighter unit based in Malaysia in the late 1980s and has provided initial jet aircraft training to new RAAF pilots since 1998. The article passed a GA review in January and a military history wikiproject A class review in March and has since been further improved (including through a copyedit conducted by ). As such, I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * EN 3: why include title here?
 * Because it's a website with no page numbers, but I agree that it's not needed (as a note, the website was created by the author of the book Darwin Spitfires to publish additional material and appendices to expand upon the print edition. The book was professionally published by the University of New South Wales Press, so the website is a RS).
 * EN 46: need endash in page range
 * Done
 * EN 51, 58: don't repeat RAAF
 * Done
 * EN 55, 56: page(s)?
 * Done
 * Where is Weston Creek?
 * In the ACT, added
 * Sadler: volume, issue, pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added (the magazine uses a combination of date and number to designate each issue). Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. (Caveat: I didn't check the new subsection No. 79 Squadron RAAF. Also, in No. 79 Squadron RAAF, it seems odd to be using the present tense with 2004 ... do you have any more recent information?) - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Re the 2004 information about the duration of training courses; unfortunately not. This isn't the kind of thing which is frequently published outside of official government reports. It's likely that the course structure hasn't changed much (if at all) since then. I've fiddled with the wording to remove the tense issues. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support -- good work as usual, from memory I reviewed this at MilHist ACR but have gone through it again from top to bottom: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose: Completed my usual copyedit but generally looked fine -- no further issues as far as I'm concerned.
 * Structure: Looks good, just not sure why you don't employ your usual (and for me preferred) "Citations" instead of "End notes" or, more particularly, "Bibliography" instead of "Works consulted".
 * Not sure either; I imagine that it made sense to me at the time. I've changed the headings. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Referencing: All points cited, all references look reliable, just slight inconsistency in the bibliography since you include retrieval dates for Pathfinder and NAA, but not Cooper and Fruhling.
 * Fixed
 * Supporting materials: Image licensing, captions, alt text look okay.
 * Detail: Thorough without being overpowering.
 * Thanks for your comments and edits Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review Licensing and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * File:CartwheelAreaMap.jpg - is the author known?
 * Yes, it's signed 'F. Temple' in the original (available here). I've just updated the image's record on Commons to reflect this. Thanks again for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Support
 * Not seeing any jargon issues or missing links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Comments by Rodw
 * What do the phrases "These raids did not eventuate immediately" & "No air threat eventuated" mean & could they be put more simply?
 * Done
 * The link to Mitsubishi A6M Zero has the text A6M "Zero" with speech marks around Zero which doesn't seem to be used for other aircraft types. Is there a particular reason for this?
 * 'Zero' was the Allied fighter pilots' reporting name for this kind of Japanese fighter, which has since morphed into its common name in the west (and in Japan as well, I think). I've also provided the reporting names for the other Japanese aircraft mentioned in the article (eg, "Tony" for the Kawasaki Ki-61). English-language sources tend to use both the Japanese name and the World War II era reporting name, so there's a need to include both.
 * The speech marks for "Tony" are outside the wikilink which is probably why I didn't spot them. Not sure if this needs to be made consistent.&mdash; Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea - done Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.&mdash; Rod talk 12:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement "flying was hampered by a shortage of spare parts" isn't supported by a reference. Do we have evidence this was the reason or is it speculation? Ref 14 or 16 a few sentences later may apply but this is unclear as they are separated by a bit about the death of the Squadron Leader.
 * That's supported by reference 14. I've repeated the reference at the end of this sentence though as I agree that it could be clearer.
 * Who/what/where is "Butterworth" & what is the connection with "Malaysia's policy of neutrality"?
 * RAAF Base Butterworth is specified as being in Malaysia when its first mentioned in both the lead and the body of the article. Malaysia's neutrality towards the perceived threat to Thailand is noted in the third sentence of the first para in the 'Ubon' section.
 * Sorry I missed this - you are right it is clear on second reading.&mdash; Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are battle honours for WWII & Thailand given out so many years after the deployments?&mdash; Rod talk 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. The Ubon honour was issued as part of series of new battle honours to mark the RAAF's 90th anniversary (I've added a note to the article on this), but I'll need to look into the rationale for the World War II honours. In the last couple of years the Australian military has handed out quite a few retrospective battle honours, and I presume that this is part of that process. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not having any luck with finding the reason for the delayed World War II honours... Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It would still be nice to know about the delayed honours but I can't see any other issues so I'm happy to support.&mdash; Rod talk 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


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