Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Eastern Area Command (RAAF)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Bringing articles on the two most important RAAF area commands to ACR simultaneously. Eastern Area became a key command after World War II, because it controlled most of the RAAF's operational units and was therefore well-placed to evolve into Home Command (later Operational Command and now Air Command) when the Air Force switched from a geographically based command-and-control system to one based on function. North-Western Area, OTOH, gained its greatest prominence during the war and for one very good reason – it was there, right in the path of Japan's major air offensives against northern Australia and, ipso facto, the best placed to deliver offensives 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! Like the other area command articles I've put together, these are both GA but I felt that the depth of coverage for these two could qualify them as A-Class. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this one for GA and I'm happy with the changes since then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on A3 Illogical organization. If there's only one content-oriented section it seems superfluous to sub-section it. Shouldn't the sub-sections, in fact, be sections? LavaBaron (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles on historical units are generally given a History section with subsections, there are many examples at A-Class. OTOH I wouldn't have an argument with changing the Aftermath subsection to a section, since technically it's not part of the history of this unit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, gentlemen, I think there is a potential compromise solution here if an Order of battle section was added, like in the North-Western Area Command (RAAF) article. Would that work? Also, what about perhaps a section listing the Commanding officers? (That could also potentially be applied to the NWAC article also). Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Rupert. I did make the Aftermath subsection into a section a couple of days ago, per my earlier comment, which is in fact how I'd generally made it in related articles. Re. OOB, I'd love to but the only list of squadrons (not arranged as an OOB per se) that I've seen already appears in the body of the article and I think is best left there; Ashworth in How Not to Run an Air Force gave OOBs for several area commands as at April 1942 but unfortunately Eastern Area just missed out because it was raised the following month. I don't know of an exhaustive list of AOCs either as this level of formation isn't accorded the same systematic treatment as squadrons and other units in secondary sources, and the only digitised operations book for Eastern Area stops well before it was re-formed as Home Command, so although it might look like we could piece a list together from my research (as appears in the text) there are gaps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comment wasn't wasted, I'd considered OOB (of sorts) but not AOCs and it was worth double-checking... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - with some minor comments:
 * No dabs, has alt text, external links check out, no duplicate links, earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase
 * There is a minor error with ref consolidation, "Solo68" seems to be used twice.
 * The layout of the article seemed quite logical to me so I didn't see any issues with A3 (which is hardly prescriptive at any rate, so I guess it comes down to perception). The use of a "History" section as a second level heading and several third level or sub-headings is quite common as a structure among MILHIST articles as Ian says. Also the current sub-headings break the text into distinct time periods (i.e. World War II and Post War), both of which saw marked changes in the organization and tasks of the subject so they seem logical to my mind at any rate.
 * Beauforts could be wikilinked.
 * I made a minor change, otherwise the prose looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Many tks AC, all done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Support
 * Article appears to meet all criteria for A-Class. I just have the following comments to go along with my support.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "By April, the command was operating seven combat units: No. 5 Squadron, flying army cooperation missions with CAC Wirraways out of Kingaroy, Queensland; No. 23 Squadron, flying dive-bombing missions with Wirraways from Lowood, Queensland; No. 24 Squadron, flying dive-bombing missions with Wirraways from Bankstown, New South Wales; No. 32 Squadron": I think 'army cooperation' needs to be clarified for the layman, and whom this squadron was supporting. I take it from the context that the dive bombers were on anti-submarine duties, is this correct? If not, I would suggest that be slightly clarified.
 * Fair enough, but the source makes no mention in that context of who 5SQN supported, and although it notes one instance where 23/24SQN were tasked with dive-bombing a sub, they were by then operating different aircraft and I'd prefer not to assume anything re. their previous aircraft. I did link army cooperation though.
 * The following quote needs to be attributed: "complete protection from Atom Bomb attack"
 * Done. Tks for reviewing, EM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Just checking, is anything holding this one up? Image review, perhaps? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The images look ok to me Ian, but happy for Nikki to take a look, if she is keen, to confirm or disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've checked the images. All are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.