Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

The RAAF's fighter conversion unit, which originated in WWII, disbanded in 1947, and was revived in the middle of the Korean War, when the Air Force realised there was a significant gap in its training program. Since then it's converted pilots to all of Australia's front-line fighters -- Sabre, Mirage, and F-18 Hornet. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC depending on how it goes here, so feel free to offer comments with that in mind as well. Thanks to Dank for a quick turnaround on the article's recent GAN, and Nick-D for some additional info and images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: couldn't see anything to pick fault with except one minor typo/whitespace issue which I fixed. Otherwise, looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments I've added a few odds and ends to this article, so I may be too involved to vote, but I have the following comments: Support On reflection, I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved to vote, and I'm pleased to support the article's promotion. I'll be adding a little bit more material to it over the next few days, but this shouldn't have much of an effect on my overall level of involvement. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "New RAAF pilots enter No. 2 OCU after first qualifying to fly fast jets at No. 79 Squadron and undertaking initial fighter combat instruction at No. 76 Squadron" - is "new" accurate here? I'd imagine that a transport or maritime patrol pilot who's re-rolling to a fighter role (which I think happens from time to time, but isn't very common) would also go through more or less the same path.
 * Yeah, quite right, I did intend to mention that to balance the "new" part, then decided I didn't need to but forgot to take out "new" -- I might add something after all 'cos I always liked the term they use for it, "retread", which is happily used in the Air Force Today article for the purposes of sourcing... ;-)
 * I'd suggest adding more on the fighter combat instructor training role, as this is about a quarter of the unit's workload. Interestingly, it also trains its own personnel through these courses. I can add more on this from the Australian Aviation article if you'd like.
 * Looking at the info you've provided so far from Australian Aviation and what I have in Air Force Today from almost ten years earlier, it looks like very little has changed. Let me expand a bit on FCI with my source and then if you can check it against yours, we can cite Australian Aviation as well and that should do it.
 * "During World War II, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) established several operational training units" - I was about to suggest providing a specific number of OTUs here, but given that some of the operational squadrons were de-facto OTUs at various times, that probably isn't very sensible.
 * From memory, the official history doesn't even mention 2OTU specifically, let alone a total number...
 * Can historical context for the formation of this unit in April 1942 be provided? This was when the RAAF was responding to its previous total lack of fighter units in Australia as the Kittyhawks began to arrive.
 * I can add that the first three RAAF P-40 squadrons were formed around this time in response to the threat to Northern Australia and New Guinea as a bare statement -- not sure any source makes a direct connection between that and 2OTU though...
 * During the 1950s No. 2 OCU formed a Sabre-equipped aerobatics team called the Marksmen - I can provide a reference Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That'd be good, tks, and tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, think I've actioned everything per above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links all check out (no action req'd).
 * Images all have Alt Text - (no action req'd).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals a few issues with reference consolidation:
 * McNamara, The Quiet Man, pp. 117–118 (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * Quiet (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * Solo358 (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * Images are all PD/free or have a valid fair use rationale and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
 * "As RAAF pilots were now gaining their first exposure to jets at another school, No. 2 OTU took over from the fighter squadrons the responsibility of converting trained jet pilots to Sabres." Consider more simply (perhaps) "As RAAF pilots were now gaining their first exposure to jets at another school, No. 2 OTU took over the responsibility of converting trained jet pilots to Sabres from the fighter squadrons."
 * I think the way I have it might be more correct grammatically for what I mean, although I wouldn't say either sounds exactly musical to the ears... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could probably add the article to a few more categories. Perhaps at least "Military units and formations established in 1942". Anotherclown (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks AC, will review/action the above shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All actioned/acknowledged now, I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.