Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North-Western Area Command (RAAF)/archive1

North-Western Area Command (RAAF)

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The last RAAF area command I'll be bringing to FAC, at least for a while, North-Western Area was also the most important during World War II. The reason is simple -- it was right in the path of Japan's major air offensives against northern Australia and, ipso facto, the best placed to deliver offensive operations of its own against Japanese forces in the Dutch East Indies; it is after all the only RAAF area command to have a campaign named after it. Some info has been added or tweaked since its MilHist A-Class Review three years ago, but the bulk of the article has remained constant. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Darwin_42.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:NWA0450Bladin1943.jpg, File:056420Cole1943.jpg, File:AVM_Charlesworth_%26_GpCapt_Headlam_(AWM_NWA1022).jpg, File:P-40Es_8th_PS_49th_PG_at_Darwin_1942.jpg, File:13_Squadron_RAAF_Hudson_aircrew_Hughes_NT_Feb_1943_AWM_NWA0074.jpg, File:Spitfires_in_RAAF_North-Western_Area_1944_(AWM_NWA0692).JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry Nikki, hadn't updated the licensing to PD-AustraliaGov since the ACR -- done now. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki, per discussion with Gavin below I've added a new map under the Order of Battle section, could you pls check my licensing? Just a stop-gap really, if I get to work out how to edit the Northern Territory SVG map into just its top portion I'll use the locator map method instead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, licensing looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This article is in great shape, with little to nitpick about. I have a few comments: That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * in the infobox, offensive operations isn't included under role, but obviously they were part of it, especially later
 * True, but I felt it best to stick to the clearly specified roles laid out for all area commands when they were formed; NWA's breadth of operations did expand as the war progressed but I'm not aware of anything extra being officially added to these core responsibilities.
 * Follow-up -- found I was able to expand a little based on a source that explicitly added raids on Japanese bases and shipping to the original, core responsibilities of air defence, reconnaissance, and protection of sea lanes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "formation of RAAF Command under Air Vice Marshal Bostock" as his rank hasn't changed since he was introduced
 * Fair enough.
 * it isn't clear that No. 1 Fighter Wing was a RAAF formation, I made the assumption that it was RAF because its squadrons were transferred from the UK. I see that it did have a RAF sqn, but think a bit more explanation is in order.
 * Also fair enough.
 * suggest there are enough wings being mentioned to stick with No. 1 Fighter Wing
 * Mmm, would you settle for once a (sub)section...? :-)
 * "divert enemy forces from Allied columns"? what do you mean by columns here?
 * Not sure what I meant -- "advances" is more in line with the source.
 * as he has been promoted, and Jones is a common name, suggest "Air Vice Marshal George Jones"
 * Sure.
 * the ORBATs are a great addition, and answer a few questions I had
 * Thanks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * The only quibble I have is that you've rendered USAAF squadron names as if they were British or Empire. No. 319 Squadron USAAF was actually the 319th Bombardment Squadron. It would probably be smart to keep USAAF in parentheses or something to show readers what country they belong to.
 * "No. 319 Squadron" was definitely an error; elsewhere I adhere to the US convention of "nth Squadron" and should have done so here. I think though that when distinguishing units that don't belong to the subject's country, putting the air force after the squadron name without parentheses is pretty standard on WP.
 * The USAAF put the type of squadron ion the name, which is not how they're rendered in the OBs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also in December, No. 34 (Transport) Squadron, which had been formed under NWA's control in Darwin four days after the first air raid, divested its aircraft Divested is a rather unusual term in read in this context. Essentially didn't No. 34 Squadron transfer its aircraft and then disband or possibly vice-versa?
 * Yes, "transferred" is probably better.
 * These are the only things that I caught on first read. I'm going to give it another read-through later to see if anything else presents itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks Sturm, pls do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another case of divested its radar stations divested to other units in the area that should probably be transferred--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How did I miss that? Tweaked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Nick-D
This article is in great shape. I have the following comments and suggestions: Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Headquartered at Darwin, North-Western Area Command was responsible for air defence, aerial reconnaissance and protection of the sea lanes within its boundaries" - I'd suggest including "initially" here given that the next para notes that its role became focused on offensive operations over time (though it was striking Japanese forces in the NEI from a surprisingly early point)
 * Heh, "initially" was there (perhaps at your suggestion way back?) and I recently deleted it because I thought it might confuse but happy to reinstate.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the account of the "Adelaide River Stakes" - wasn't the issue that some units were ordered to evacuate, while other RAAF personnel deserted? If so, it might be best to separate this.
 * Will check.
 * I don't have Grose or Lockwood at hand but Stephens mentions Gillison reporting that the Darwin station commander's direction to personnel to "regroup" could have been misconstrued as an evacuation order, but that he (Stephens) finds this interpretation overgenerous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I have been dubious about the stories of units being told to evacuate into what was basically wilderness at the time. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * " one squadron each of Dutch East Indies B-25 Mitchell medium bombers" - I presume that this is No. 18 (Netherlands East Indies) Squadron RAAF? If so, I'd suggest tweaking the text to note it was an Australian-Dutch East Indies squadron given that around half its personnel were Australian.
 * Fair enough.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The shortcomings of the Spitfires (especially their short range, but also the issues experienced around mechanical unreliability) could be more explicitly noted - this is hinted at
 * Will check.
 * Re-reading the article, I kind of feel the shortcomings mentioned are enough, and if we expand these then we perhaps should go into problems with other types as well -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I might be a bit one-eyed given my interest in No. 1 Wing, but the problems with the Spitfires were fairly serious as it made intercepting incoming raids a tricky business (especially as the Spitfire was the only type available for air defence) and meant that No. 1 and No. 80 Wings were effectively useless once the raids stopped. I'm happy to leave it to your judgement though. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is the right place to cover the issue, but the very serious proposal to base large numbers of B-29s at Darwin could be noted, especially as it lead to some fairly significant construction works (see the No. 61 Wing article)
 * Will check.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "No. 1 Wing received two fresh British squadrons of Spitfires in July, to replace two that had been transferred to No. 80 Wing" - perhaps note that the transferred squadrons were Australian? It's interesting that No. 1 Wing's flying units were all British from this point forwards.
 * Sure.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could some or all of the orders of battle be expanded to note non-flying units?
 * Like to but from memory only one of the sources includes those so I went for consistency...
 * OK, fair enough. I'd suggest tweaking the text to note that the OOBs are only for flying squadrons though. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My comments are now addressed so I'm pleased to support, but I've left a couple of suggestions above for further consideration. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Links: I was unable to get the link in ref 26 to work, after repeated attempts. Perhaps it is a local problem. The source appears to be to a paid subscription service, and this should perhaps be noted
 * Yes, it is a subscription service, the old "subscription=yes" parameter is apparently out now and we use "url-access=subscription", which puts in the red padlock emblem...
 * Formats: ref 12 requires pp. not p.
 * Done.
 * Quality and reliabililty: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, appreciate your efforts. Cheers, 00:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

SC
(I can't help but think of N.W.A while reading this, which is something of a polar cultural opposite to the subject!)
 * Formation
 * Is there anything you can do with "Five days later, the Australian War Cabinet officially transferred to ABDACOM the operational control of northern Australia stretching from Onslow in Western Australia to the south-east edge of the Gulf of Carpentaria"? It reads a little bumpily at the moment
 * I wouldn't disagree -- the whole ADBA bit was added by another editor and I tweaked it but perhaps I can do better with this, let me think about it.
 * How about "Five days later, the Australian War Cabinet officially transferred the operational control of northern Australia between Onslow in Western Australia and the south-east edge of the Gulf of Carpentaria to ABDACOM"? - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1942–43
 * "As well, 278 RAAF": I think we can drop the first two words – they make the sentence look like an add-on.
 * I think I threw them in because you're not supposed to start a sentence with digits, but I could fix that with a semicolon...
 * "finetuned" and "coordinate": the OED has these hyphenated. Does AusEng have them as one word? (I ask from a position of complete ignorance!)
 * Have to admit I've never double-checked these things before but the Macquarie seems to allow finetune while preferring it hyphenated, so will change that; coordinate seems correct in AusEng.
 * "airfields at Cooomalie, Millingimbi, Fenton, Long, and Darwin" Any chance of a map showing the main places of note? (Aside from the three general ones showing the whole country?)
 * Funny, just after I nominated this I started asking myself the same question. There is in the official history at least one decent map of the Darwin area, its airfields and their units, it would just take me time to produce my own version and then I'd have to think of where to put it without sandwiching text, but I will look into it.
 * Had a go -- meant I had to remove the shot of the crew from 13 Sqn but I'll try and make up for it by adding the image to the squadron's article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "on the assumption (correct as it happened) that this was where the Japanese raiders were based". I'm not over-keen on the parentheses in the middle (or maybe just the phrase "as it happened", which feels unencyclopaedic and, if it remained, needs a comma after "correct")
 * I believe my original phrasing was "in the event" but had previously suggested "as it happened" as a more universal expression and I was okay with that -- what would you think of "(which proved to be correct)" (or the same with long dashes in place of parentheses)?
 * How about "which proved to be correct" with long dashes? - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, consider it done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "385, including ninety-six officers": I think the MoS says not to mix numerals and spelled-out numbers (and ditto the "numbered 108, including twenty-three officers" in the "Post-war" section.
 * Yes I've always found it a bit problematic that we're supposed to use digits over a certain number and words below a certain number but then not mix the two. Of course many prefer all numbers above 10 to be in digits anyway but I like to spell out those below 100 because we have so many digits in military articles with all the different units and so on. Regardless, happy to use digits across the board in these instances.
 * 1943–45
 * "During March–April 1944" -> "During March and April 1944"? (Ditto "in June–July"?
 * Okay.

That's it—all very minor quibbles for you to consider, and nothing to stop a support if you decide to retain most of the status quo. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking it over Gavin! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent stuff. Many thanks for taking these into account - I am happy that the article meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks Gav. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  22:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)