Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RAAF area commands/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2017.

RAAF area commands

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is a little unusual in that I'm unaware of any comparable short history of the subject, a command-and-control system that's been defunct since the 1950s but which was a key part of Royal Australian Air Force operations in the Pacific during World War II. The nom is a follow-up to my last FAC on Donald Hardman, the officer charged with dismantling and replacing the area system. I’m not sure why this particular subject should interest me particularly, but it may have something to do with the way the commands evolved throughout their existence, sometimes with the apparent speed and abandon of the Haggunenons of Vicissitus Three. I originally planned a list-like article with subsections on the individual commands following the overview but in the end I decided that the commands all justified their own articles; with this article they now form a Good Topic. As well as those who commented at the article's MilHist A-Class Review, I’d like to acknowledge the RAAF history staff at the Air Power Development Centre, Canberra, for their help in chasing down some references; they were also kind enough to look over the article recently and suggested only one minor improvement. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Surprisingly easy to follow. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan -- that's good to know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Any time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

 * There are 7 images which are well-relevant to the text, and all of them have proper description templates, no copyright issues, and ALT texts. No issues anywhere, and it is good great to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When and where were File:Caf_goble.jpg and File:Jones-Bostock-Burnett_AWM_012249.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not explicit, Nikki -- these images have been on WP for some time in other articles so the licence tags could well be due for finetuning; perhaps the same Crown Copyright one as Hardman for Goble, and either that or CC-Zero for Jones-Bostock-Burnett? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That Crown tag should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's done -- tks Nikki and Adityavagarwal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

 * Why are the maps different sizes?
 * The first three are all drawn to the same scale, the last one was different to show more of the outer boundaries; as to overall size, I felt the first was the most important and should be the largest, those in the main body were sized to fit the text for a standard 1366x768 screen resolution -- anyway I've upped the ones in the main body a bit.
 * Oh. I have my screen set at 2560x1600.  Hawkeye7   (talk)  00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "On the eve of World War II, the RAAF" I know we defined the abbreviation in the lead, but the lead and the article should be capable of standing separately
 * Quite right, that's my usual practice too -- done.
 * Link Air Vice-Marshal, Air Chief Marshal
 * I think there's a MOS guideline (one with which I tend to agree) against contiguous links so I prefer not to link ranks when the person in question is wiki-notable.
 * "situated at five air bases" Since there are only five of them, could you could list them?
 * I guess I felt that if we name the bases there might be a suggestion to footnote all the squadrons and the aircraft depots as well but I was probably being too careful -- done.
 * "the Australian Air Board" Could you briefly explain what this was?
 * Guess what my current article under development is -- can you wait for the link...? ;-)
 * Sure. An article on it would be a good idea.  Hawkeye7   (talk)  00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "In August that year, RAAF Headquarters proposed to disband" Suggest "proposed disbanding"
 * Fair enough -- done.
 * "Air Marshal Jones, who had retained his position as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS)" Do we need his rank here? And could you define this abbreviation on first use above?
 * I like to note then someone has been promoted since we last mentioned them so it could either be as is or something like "who had retained his position as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) and been promoted to air marshal" -- WDYT?
 * My reasoning for only introducing the CAS abbreviation here is that it was quite a while since we last mentioned the position and I was concerned that the uninitiated might have forgotten what CAS was by the time we got here -- OTOH the chances that anyone not familiar with the service would ever read this article is pretty small so if you still think best I don't mind doing as you suggest.
 * "He declared that the RAAF was "the one force that could quickly strike for Australia's and the Commonwealth's defence in South East Asia". " Direct quotes are usually followed by a reference, but I can't find the relevant MOS reference (if there is one) so it's up to you.
 * I think you're right and, since there are two citations for the quote and the surrounding statements, I should finetune it -- take a little while but will do.
 * "The three functions were duly constituted" Not the three functions, but the three functional commands
 * I was trying to say that the three functions/concepts were given form as the new commands -- doesn't work for you?
 * "Home Command was re-formed" In this paragraph we say "re-formed" but since they were never formed before, would "formed" be better? (It's okay in the next paragraph.)
 * Yes, I think you're right; I could say Eastern Area was re-formed as Home Command but not really the other way round -- done.
 * "North-Western Area Command was disbanded in June 1955, Western Area Command in November 1956, and North-Eastern Area Command in December 1956." This doesn't match the table below.
 * Are you sure? I must have missed something...
 * "Summary of area commands formed" Could you add references to the table?
 * Everything in the table is (or should -- will action if not) be mentioned/cited in the main body so I think citations would be redundant, and probably a bit messy.

All in all, I think this is a fine article. The rationale for area commands as opposed to functional commands is well explained. The quote from Hardman is ironic; only in Thailand did the RAAF operate without the other services. Britain was a lot smaller than Australia, with better communications, and Hardman's successors faced a long road getting the functional command structure to work. The reduction of the number of commands to just one nicely brings the article full circle, back to the situation before the Second World War. Hawkeye7  (talk)  22:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tks for that Hawkeye -- I think the fact that the sources do go into the reasons for the system and its evolution (and dissolution) helped make this sort of overview a worthwhile exercise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support.  Hawkeye7   (talk)  00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from Nick-D
I commented on this article's ACR in 2015, and its good to see it here. I have the following comments:
 * At the risk of being really annoying/obvious, the ill-timed move of the RAAF Air Power Development Centre's website means you'll need to update the relevant URLs (I just did this for the Vengeance FAC!)
 * Yeah, this has been on my list since yesterday when it all changed... ;-)
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * File:RAAFAreaCommands1941.png would benefit from a more specific citation in its Commons record - the others are referenced to specific pages, but this one is referenced to a large part of the book
 * Um, are we looking at the same file? I have p. 237 in there...
 * Oops, my mistake: I meant File:RAAFAreaCommands1940.png Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was a typo -- should've been pp. 27-28, not 27-288... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do any sources mention a link between the RAAF command areas and the Army's military districts? (I think that the Navy might have also had districts??)
 * I think I would've mentioned such a link if it was highlighted by any of the sources, but I can check the main ones again just in case. From memory the Army districts were even more closely aligned to state boundaries than the RAAF areas so there probably wasn't much of a correlation...
 * Couldn't find any comparisons based on a search of Ashworth, Gillison and Stephens (his Centenary of Australian Defence history and Going Solo)...
 * OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Of necessity, the two northerly commands were primarily responsible for bombing and air defence, while the other commands focussed on maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare" - I'd suggest also noting that there were also a handful of squadrons assigned responsibility for air defence of Brisbane and the Sydney area in 1942-43, and Perth until the end of the war (I presume that these were integrated in some way with the surprisingly large network of Army AA guns).
 * I kept it to what we currently have because Stephens specifically couched things in those terms when discussing the main tasks of the northerly commands vs. the southerly. I know I could source the stuff about the air defence squadrons in the southerly areas but I think it would have to be a very bald, stand-alone statement about units at particular bases, not directly referencing the area commands.
 * Given the above I wonder if in fact it might be better to just leave discussion of units, air defence or otherwise, to the individual area command articles, which in most cases include OOBs from 1942 or later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible. It often surprises me how little has been written about the sizeable forces used in the defence of key locations and shipping during this period, so sourcing is very limited. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If sources permit, a high-level organisation chart of the RAAF's various commands and groups circa late 1942 or early 1943 would be helpful to illustrate how the area command system fitted into the RAAF's structure at its most complex of the war (probably more so than the photos of key officers), though the descriptions in the text are clear - these can be generated with the automated functions in MS Word or similar. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of something based on one of Ashworth's org charts? If so it could be done, though I'd prefer to put it in another Summary-like section at the end with a big image rather than something relatively small in the main body that the reader would have to click to make sense of...
 * Yes, they do look like good models (though perhaps simplified a bit?). You're right about a large image working better than a thumbnail given that readers would need to expand the thumbnail to understand it. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just added something based on Ashworth's org chart from the end of the Pacific War... I included Allied Air Forces SWPA to make clear the dual control aspect but left out its subordinate US formations to keep it as straightforward as possible -- see what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks great Ian, and should be useful for a bunch of other articles - not least those touching on why the RAAF's command structure of this era was a mess! Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick -- I was pretty damn happy with it when done but thought I'd get a reality check before I said as much... ;-) Hell of a good suggestion on your part -- I'd never spent much time looking at Ashworth's org charts despite reading pretty well every word of his text, and he's about the only author who's actually presented things this way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your comments, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we just need a source review for this now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review All sources are reliable and of good or academic quality, properly formatted etc. Spot checked footnotes 13, 21 and 36, all good. Rest AGF. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.