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

Western Area Command (RAAF)

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Following on from Eastern Area Command and North-Eastern Area Command, I present the longest-surviving RAAF area command, which operated from 1941 to 1956 and covered most of Western Australia. Geography meant that its prime focus was maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, so its story was never going to be as action-packed as its northern cousins but, unlike North-Eastern Area at least, it did get to control an RAAF B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadron, No. 25, which still exists as the non-flying "City of Perth" squadron. Western Area's post-war period also closed with a bang of sorts, as the British atomic test at Montebello took place within its boundaries. I've copyedited and added some info since the article's MilHist A-Class Review a few years ago, so have at it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Source review by Factotem
Incoming Factotem (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * General
 * William Hely appears in the infobox as commander, but this is not supported by anything in the main body of the article.
 * Second last para of post-war section...?
 * Caught out by a sneaky name change from William to Bill. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Technical checks
 * ISBN formats are inconsistent; mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13;
 * I'm a bit dubious about converting 10-digit ISBNs just because we can. I always try to use the exact ISBN from the edition I've referenced, so if it has both 10- and 13-digit I use the latter but if it only has 10 then I don't convert. Of course I'm happy to check that I've always used 13-digit if available.
 * Series/volume information is provided as part of the title for publications by Gillison, Odgers and the RAAF Historical section, but the cite book template has parameters that allow these to be presented separately. The sources can still be identified without any problem, which is what's really important, so this is somewhat picky, but I don't think it's any less picky than consistently formatted ISBNs, which FAC seems to insist on;
 * Well, per above, I don't know about FAC insisting on consistent ISBNs if only 10-digit ones are used in the relevant edition. As far as series v. title goes, I don't feel that strongly about it either way, it's just that the format here is consistent with most other RAAF units articles I've brought to FAC.
 * I wonder if the Pathfinder bulletin could be listed as a magazine in the bibliography (after all, you list a PhD thesis there)?
 * There is method in my madness here in that Pathfinder, though organised like a magazine or bulletin, is AFAIK only available online and has no page numbers and so doesn't really benefit (IMO) from a short cite to something in the References section (unlike the thesis, which employs page numbers and may have different page ranges cited for different parts of the article).


 * External link checks
 * Ext link checker tool doesn't throw up any problems


 * Reliability and quality of sources
 * Because it is a primary source, I spent some time checking the first seven (out of a total of 13) uses of the Western Area Headquarters source. Did not see anything to suggest problems with WP:PRIMARY, except you seem to have excluded the four WAAF officers from the total number of officers stated at the end of the 5th para in the World War II section (ref #28 in the version that I reviewed). As a sidenote, I would also point out that you're mixing numbers here (247 staff, but seventy-two officers) and elsewhere in the article (I believe MOS likes us to enumerate numbers above ten and not to mix enumerated and spelled-out numbers in the same sentence);
 * I have to admit I like to only use figures for numbers above 100 because there are so many digits in military articles with their numbered units and so on. That said, I think MOS does like the same style for all numbers in same sentence so "247 staff including 72 officers" is probably called for in any case. Tks also for finding that error re. the Waafs, will fix.
 * My mistake. I thought all numbers above 10 had to use figures, but on reading MOS:NUMERAL I see it's not that simple. Just need to be sure that styles aren't mixed in the same sentence. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I checked through the website and newspaper sources and found nothing to concern me.


 * Survey of sources for comprehensiveness
 * I completed an albeit cursory search of Gbooks and JSTOR for western area command raaf and found nothing to suggest the article isn't a comprehensive survey of relevant sources.

That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks very much Factotem, always appreciate your thorough reviews -- embedded responses above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I've queried the ISBN format consistency thing on the TP; it's something I picked up from reading other reviews rather than something I personally care deeply about. See no reason not to Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This article is in great shape. I reviewed it for Milhist ACR back in July 2016, and have looked at the changes since then, and read through it again just now. The only issue unresolved from the ACR was the addition of some info about what aircraft each squadron was operating, and I note that has now been provided. I have a few pretty minor comments: That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * covering New South Wales and Queensland; at the same time, Central Area" seems to beg a full stop and new sentence rather than a semicolon.
 * Done.
 * "following the outbreak of the Pacific War,." has an unneeded comma
 * Done (well caught).
 * suggest moving the RAAF area commands map down two paras, closer to November 1942 in the narrative
 * On my 1366x768 screen, two paras down would sandwich the image of Brownell and co, so compromised on one para down.
 * is there an ORBAT available for the post-November 1942 expansion of the command?
 * Not as such, hence my simply listing operational squadrons at as April 1943 per Odgers.
 * Is that supposed to be 1943? It says 1942. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I've confused you (or perhaps you've confused me, we'll know when you reply!)... I assumed you were talking about the beginning of the second-last para of the WWII section, the first time we mention combat strength after Nov 1942. What I meant was that I don't have an official OOB for then so I just mentioned in the text the combat squadrons as Odgers gives them at that time. The only OOB as such that I'm aware of is the one as at Apr 1942 that I list at the end of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I meant the ORBAT at the end. No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review
Also the article is missing a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * File:RAAFAreaCommands1940.png: source link is dead. Same with File:RAAFAreaCommands1942.png
 * Updated links.
 * File:An010702DeLaRue1941.jpg: if this was created by a newspaper, why would it be AustraliaGov?
 * I was probably thinking of it being exhibited by a government institution (the state library) rather than its origin. Given it's a newspaper pic that the source website clearly states is out of copyright, I'd assume PD-Australia is the way to go?
 * Yep, that should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, never done a short description for any of "my" articles, but I'll have a go... Tks for looking things over, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
IR's armed forces articles have the considerable merit – from a reviewer's point of view – of brevity, but that doesn't mean they aren't comprehensive. This one is is a good read, well and widely referenced, with better illustrations than one might expect for an article about a fairly recent time, given copyright constraints (a prize might perhaps be offered for Senior Officer with Worst Shorts among the brass in the second photograph). The article is thoroughly and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Happy to add my support. –  Tim riley  talk   22:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always Tim -- the RAAF is quite well served by histories of its small units, especially the flying squadrons, but much less so when it comes to larger formations (wings, groups, commands) so for better or worse I think these types of WP articles are the most comprehensive one will readily find on their subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * Shouldn't it be "1941–1942", "1942–1945", "1946–1948" and "1951–1953" in the infobox be?
 * Last time I checked MOS made this optional in infoboxes to help save space, and I like to take advantage of that as we can have lots of date ranges in military boxes.
 * MOS told me that it indeed helps save some space but only where space is limited "IMO" the active years and the last commanders should have the four-digit numbers because the space isn't limited. I tottaly understand the first commanders their digit numbers are limiting the infobox. Of course this is just an opinion, what do you think about my opinion? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree in this instance space isn't really at a premium so I'm not that fussed if we went to the four-digit years, but I think it should be consistent within the infobox, all one or the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Who was the last commander between 1953 and 1956?
 * Probably not wikinotable or I would've added it in but I can double-check the unit history...
 * Double-checked and we do have a name for the last commander (Watson) but TBH I've never heard of him apart from this and if I may say so that's a pretty good indicator he's not notable in WP terms... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And how about the commander between 1948 and 1951? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy called Ford, again not wikinotable AFAICS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks CPA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Aside from that very small point, this appears (to my ignorant eye) to cover everything I'd expect to see. Usual cop out for ignorance, but this passes the FA criteria, as far as I am concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I have only one (actionable) comment, which may be just my ignorance:
 * Lead/IB
 * I was a bit confused by the map in the IB until I saw the one lower down. I'm still a bit confused, however: the area that covers most of Western Australia and South Australia (and a corner of the Northern Territory) was covered by who?
 * Yeah, always thought those 1940 boundaries were pretty eccentric myself. I think they started with where units were located, then they drew boundaries encompassing those locations rather strictly by state lines, hence the lead saying "units in" Western Australia rather than just Western Australia (which was never strictly correct even later, as the second map shows). So that big area you mention was no man's land in 1940, because there were no RAAF units in there, and I guess no prospect of any at the time. It was only in 1941 that every square inch of the country was assigned to an area command.
 * "Hippolyte De La Rue"? That sounds more like a name from Round the Horne, but I'll take your word for it! (And the nickname Kanga Rue?! I'm not sure I've heard anything more Australian!)
 * Yes, bit of a gift for air force comedians, that name! To further confuse matters he was also called Frank, though it wasn't even a middle name (a tribute to his presumed Gallic roots perhaps)...
 * Tks Gav, appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  12:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)