Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 91 Wing 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2016.

No. 91 Wing RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nowadays when the Royal Australian Air Force has to deploy a mixed bag of aircraft to support a foreign war it forms an air task group, but in the 1950s it was "composite" wings. This article is about the one established to administer RAAF units in the Korean War, contemporaneous with No. 90 Wing (subject of a recent FAC) in the Malayan Emergency. No. 91 Wing's story is in effect – for those interested – an overview of the RAAF's entire involvement in Korea. Tks for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2016 (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) 19:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * All of the images are PD-Australia, but all have dates of after 1946 - are we sure the US copyright would not have been restored? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well they're all Australian War Memorial images that would fall into the same category as say the 1953 picture from the recently promoted Reg Pollard, which passed muster -- happy to finetune the tagging on these if necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Does the govt worldwide release notice from the Pollard image apply to all AWM images? If so, think we should include that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it applies to every AWM image that they've marked similarly to the Pollard shot, which includes all the images in the 91 Wing article, so happy to make consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The AWM has marked all (or at least virtually all) of the images in its online database which are now PD in Australia with a blanket statement that they are PD, which applies worldwide. The AWM "owns" these images, so this in effect is a global release. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Standardised the tagging per above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nikki, would you mind giving the referencing a quick review to hopefully finish this one up? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Support – very readable, evidently comprehensive, well and widely sourced – and blessedly concise (unlike some other FACs we see now and again, no names, no packdrill). Happy to support for FA.  Tim riley  talk    16:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Life's too short for anything but summary style... ;-) Many tks Tim! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments Great work Ian, and given the somewhat surprising failure by the RAAF to ever produce wing histories, this article would have required a lot of work. I have the following comments:
 * "Personnel were preparing to return to Australia" - this implies something like a personnel rotation was occurring when, from memory, the entire squadron was packing up to leave. I'd suggest clarifying this
 * Will change to "the squadron".
 * "Communication problems with No. 91 Wing dogged the evacuation from Yonpo, which was effected through US Air Force support supplementing the efforts of RAAF Dakotas" - what's meant by "communication" is unclear here (does this refer to liaison and supply arrangements?)
 * Radio comms was specifically mentioned, will clarify.
 * "The standard working days for technicians at Iwakuni contrasted with shifts of up to sixteen hours near the front line in Korea" - what "standard working days" means here is unclear. Could this be changed to something like "While technicians at Iwakuni worked only standard business hours, those posted to Korea undertook shifts of up to sixteen hours duration"? Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I always found this problematic to word as the source simply says "normal" working hours without specifying the exact number. I'd hoped "standard working days" got the meaning across without using the expression "business" (as Defence was much less of a business back then!) but if we can't think of anything better I'm prepared to change it as you suggest, Nick.
 * "Standard RAAF working hours" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with that -- consider it done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks for looking Nick -- yes, this one was even more of a challenge than No. 90 Wing because of the additional units involved and it was only when I contacted the kind folk at RAAF Historical Section, Canberra, that I got conclusive evidence that Transport Flight (Japan) was officially under 91 Wing's control for a short time, something I'd figured but wasn't certain of until very recently... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers Nick! Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Little confused by the format being used for newspapers. You've got NLA listed as publisher, but then are using place of original publication for location, correct? The way this is presented doesn't make that clear. You could simply omit locations since they're all in the titles anyways, or you could use via for NLA instead
 * All of the References but one includes location - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Nikki -- these citations go back to when NLA's WP citations employed " : NLA", before the "via" parameter, which of course makes more sense. That said, I agree the location is redundant in all these cases so have dropped it while adding "via", so should be consistent and logical now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Seems to cover the subject quite well. A few points:
 * "It left behind its main support elements at Iwakuni." there's an extent to which the phrasing here is redundant.
 * It is a bit isn't it? Will trim...
 * "Elements of the US Far East Air Forces command favoured the establishment " elements? possibly "Officers"
 * Fair enough, will tweak.
 * Was the South African government veto apartheid-related, or something similarly racy?
 * Good question but the source didn't say -- perhaps just a little declaration of independence from the government of the time...
 * Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks for stopping by! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  19:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.