Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 1 Squadron 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Squadron RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

As the RAAF's premier squadron, active for most of the 98 years since its formation during WWI, this unit has generated a good deal of source material so, unlike many of the articles I've attacked, what to put in has been less of an issue than what to leave out and which references to emphasise. Aside from dedicated unit histories and operations books (the latter mainly for confirming aircraft and personnel strengths at various times) I've tried to ensure that the most recent in-depth studies of each major period are well utilised (i.e. Moltenkin for WWI, Coulthard-Clark for between the wars, Johnston for WWII, Stephens for the Cold War, and McPhedran for recent years), augmented by the official war histories and other works. Similarly I hope the balance of info across the unit's long history is satisfactory, and am of course open to suggestions for redressing any concerns in that regard. I'd like to acknowledge the contributions over the past year or so by several people, in particular AustralianRupert, Nigel Ish and Nick-D, as well as Sturmvogel_66 for his recent GA review, since when I've further tweaked and expanded the article. As you'd guess, the ultimate destination for this article is FAC, so any suggestions on that count are more than welcome! Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments Great work as always Ian. I have the following comments: Support My comments are now all addressed: great work Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "During World War II, the squadron flew Lockheed Hudson bombers in the Malayan and Dutch East Indies campaigns before being reduced to cadre in 1942" - it might be worth tweaking this to note that the squadron was basically destroyed during these campaigns
 * Added a bit, and took the opportunity to expand slightly on the post-war era.
 * " it was also under threat for a time of being renumbered as an RAF squadron" - not sure that this wording is totally neutral ;) (though it would have probably reflected the views of the Australian airmen)
 * Heh, fair enough.
 * The photo of the Canberra bomber is a bit blury and unexciting; I'd suggest replacing this with another alternative (unless this is the only or best confirmed-to-be-1 Squadron photo we have?)
 * Judging by the tail fin flash, I think it might even be a 2Sqn plane, but at least it's in the right silver colour scheme. The only better-quality PD pictures I'm aware of in the appropriate livery are the air race ones (which certainly weren't 1Sqn) on Commons, and a couple of early British-made models at the AWM. Suggestions welcome!
 * The recent news coverage of the F-35 purchase has noted that a decision to buy an additional 24 aircraft to replace the Super Hornets will be made in the (possibly distant) future, so the last sentence is probably too strong. The RAAF's website notes that "In the future, a fourth operational squadron will be considered for RAAF Base Amberley, for a total of about 100 F-35A's." . The DMO's website notes says that a decision will be made at some point after 2015, and this will affect when the F/A-18Fs leave service . From memory, the 2013 Defence White Paper stated that the RAAF had a requirement for about 100 F-35s, and this appears to be the current government's position as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this was always going to be a bit complicated. Tks for the links, I'll take a look when I can -- for now I've softened the existing statement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again Nick. Checking over those links, and re-reading Australian Aviation, I think I was in fact reporting the latter accurately (it used the word "likely") and that this contradicts somewhat the RAAF/DMO pages, or at the very least offers another scenario, so be interested in your take on that. I was also interested to see that the DMO suggests buying more F-35s will depend on a decision about retaining the Rhinos, not the other way round, which is how I'd always read the situation. Do you think the appropriate way to go is to essentially note all this, explicitly attributing the possible Rhino replacement scenario to the government pages, and the "likely" Rhino retention scenario to Australian Aviation? Personally, I think the magazine is right on the money, but that's of course neither here nor there! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's necessarily a contradiction between the official line and the Australian Aviation story: the DMO says that a decision on the extra F-35s is "not expected before 2015" and this will flow on from a decision on what to do with the F/A-18Fs (AFAIK, these are still officially considered an interim type, so they could be sold back to the USN), and this seems consistent with the AA story about the F/A-18s being regained until they wear out and then being replaced with F-35s. I'd note that Australian Aviation has been pushing for a split Super Hornet and F-35 combat force for years so that the RAAF doesn't end up with its entire air combat force reaching block obsolescence at the same time, or being grounded if a serious mechanical fault with the type turns up (a position which makes a lot of sense to me IMO). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I think you, me and AA are in violent agreement here, for me it makes sense to have a mixed force with some cross-over of mission capability, and not put all our eggs in one basket... That aside, sure, AA isn't so much contradicting the govt pages as emphasising one possible long-term scenario, i.e. the mixed force with just 72 F-35s and the Rhinos/Growlers seeing out their full life-of-type, which the govt pages merely imply. I do think however that the RAAF F-35 page muddies the waters by postulating just one F-35 squadron for Amberley, since another 28 aircraft is more like two squadrons (as AA suggests). So I might take the AA and DMO pages and smash their info together to recast the last part a little -- stay tuned... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, I obviously missed it before but the DMO page also talks about one squadron at Amberley, though again I'm not sure why one additional squadron needs 28 planes... OTOH, they're talking about 1Sqn operating all 24 Rhinos when 6Sqn gets the Growlers, so maybe there's something in it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be really surprised if the RAAF can resist the temptation to not re-raise a historic squadron/OCU HQ here to provide the operational conversion capability ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't get me started... ;-) If it were up to me, when the Growlers arrive the Wedgetail unit would be renumbered after one of the old maritime squadrons (say 9 or 20) while 2Sqn, as a long-time 82Wg unit, would be re-formed for the Growlers, and 1 and 6 carry on as they are now... Anyway, had a go at rejigging somewhat the last bit of the article so let me know how it reads to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a few World War II fighter squadrons which I imagine the RAAF is keen to bring back as well. That change looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * A little over my head here, but I like to link multi-role fighters. IMO, it's not obvious to all of our readers what the various roles are. (push to talk) 20:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, if you mean when it appears after an aircraft type, I left it out because I prefer not to have concurrent links if avoidable, and the reader can find out more by clicking the aircraft link; if you mean when it's used (or implied) in isolation, e.g. "multi-role capability", then I wouldn't have a particular issue linking that. Others may have an opinion so happy to be guided by consensus... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "(ACO)": The acronym doesn't appear again in the article ... so we're omitting those, right?
 * I just used it because it's a valid acronym that might not be obvious given "air combat officer" isn't capitalised, but I don't have a strong opinion on it if you feel it should go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that some people might recognize the officer more readily as an ACO than as an "air combat officer", that's a legitimate exception to the MOS advice. In that case, stet. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where was that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "called 'sir'" and that officers". - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Commander-in-Chief Far East Air Force": A few years ago, I think we (me, Hawkeye, a few others) decided that a comma sometimes gets inserted after "Chief", because it's pretty jargony without the comma. If you don't see commas in this construction, then it's fine to leave it out.
 * I don't have the source at hand and can't recall if it used a comma or not. I know those titles can take commas but where there's doubt I'd prefer to omit it as we have another comma before the chap's name/rank, which neatly subdivides those from the position title. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add this to my list of things to test on Wikipedians for comprehension and flow. My theory is that that noun phrase consisting of noun-prep-noun-adv-adj-noun-noun is going to be misread, or at least pondered over, by some readers who aren't expecting it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "In the event,": Ugh.
 * All right, so I was trying it on... ;-) "As it happened..."? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links check out (no action req'd).
 * Images all have Alt Text (no action req'd).
 * Captions look fine.
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals one (very) minor issue with reference consolidation:
 * 1SqnRole (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * Tks for spotting that! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * A large few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * Sinai Campaign
 * Frank McNamara
 * Victoria Cross
 * RAAF Station Amberley
 * No. 82 Wing RAAF
 * Boeing Australia
 * Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets
 * McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet
 * I did this deliberately as sort of an experiment, treating the Role and equipment section as almost another introduction, separate to the History section. Certainly the last five links don't appear again until quite a way into the remainder of the article, though I grant you the first three show up pretty early on... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "where it bore the brunt of the Commonwealth air campaign against communist guerillas" - wonder if it would work better as "where it bore the brunt of the Commonwealth air campaign against the communist guerillas."
 * I guess I felt that using "the" presupposes the reader knows what the Emergency was about and leaving it out sounds more explanatory -- not sure if that makes sense or not, maybe it's just how it sounds to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "and an inspection of RAAF procedures in 1938...", might work better as "and a review of RAAF procedures in 1938..."
 * It generally seems to be referred to as an inspection but I agree "review" probably makes more sense for the general reader -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Should the bit on INTERFET should at least mention Indonesia as the possible adversary?
 * I suppose it should do at that -- reworded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cutlack, F.M. in the references seems slightly inconsistent using initials when all the rest use the author's full name. Perhaps expand (Frederic Morley)?
 * I've always used "F.M." because that's how he's named in the book, and I've never heard him referred to as anything but... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Minor nitpicks aside this is a very good article in my opinion. An excellent job summarising a large amount of literature into a succinct and accessible article. Anotherclown (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks AC -- that's appreciated (I know you've made a few edits to it yourself in the past). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2014 (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.