Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 38 Squadron RAAF


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

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. 38 Squadron RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers the history and current role of one of the Royal Australian Air Force's transport squadrons. Formed in 1943, No. 38 Squadron saw operational service during World II and the Malayan Emergency before becoming an operational conversion unit. Despite this focus, the squadron provided aircraft to peacekeeping deployments in Pakistan and East Timor. It operated the remarkable de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou for a remarkable period of 45 years, before being re-equipped with Beechcraft King Air 350s in 2009. It is also one of the few RAAF squadrons to have never been disbanded, with the result that it has the longest period of continual operation of any of the RAAF's flying squadrons.

I developed this article as part of the current B-class drive, and it turned out much better than I was expecting. It passed a GA review on 9 June, and has since been expanded and copy-edited. As such, I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. I'm also considering developing the article to FA status, and would appreciate any suggestions for areas of further improvement. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments -- I expect I'll review in depth as usual but I just happened to be thinking about air force unit articles at FAC and figured I may as well share my thoughts on this now, since you ask...! My feeling is that articles on active units need a bit more than a lead and a history section. I'd expect there to be a section on current role and organisation in there as well. Therein lies the rub, of course, as the place you'd expect to get this sort of info, the official RAAF website, is usually painfully thin in this regard. Even the units that have their own page, and a role subpage, often have only a line or two's "detail" on their purpose and organisation. This is why (if you were wondering!) that I've stopped short of taking any of my recent wing articles the next step after their successful ACRs -- I just feel there's a bit more current info out there to be added, and I'm not really comfortable putting the articles up for FAC without it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The good thing about this unit is that Australian Aviation published a fairly in-depth article on it in 2010, so there's some reasonably up-to-date coverage of its role which I've drawn on in the last paragaphs (the magazine covered most of the RAAF's squadrons during this period, but only occasionally seems to discuss wings). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, the situation is better for squadrons than for wings. The latter are generally only ever mentioned in passing, but squadrons sometimes attract entire articles that can provide the info I'm talking about. My suggestion is that if you have a paragraph's worth of role/organisation stuff then it'd justify its own section between the lead and the history section (and if that sets a new standard for the structure of "current" RAAF unit articles to aim at for FAC then so be it -- indeed, so much the better). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the article as it stands certainly follows the structural standard of other A-Class RAAF units/formation articles, and indeed the few Featured RAAF squadron articles, so I've no particular issue with the structure as it is for ACR. However I'd like to see a separate role/organisation section at least prior to FAC. I note that No. 79 Squadron, which if memory serves was the first RAAF squadron article to achieve Featured status, doesn't have such a section but I think it could, given the detail in the final "Current status" section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments Ian - I've just restructured this article to include a "current role" section (expanding it a bit during the process), which I think makes things clearer - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: looks pretty good to me, I just have a few comments/suggestions regarding prose tweaks:
 * "In 1954 it became the unit responsible for training RAAF personnel to operate Dakotas" --> "In 1954 it became responsible for training RAAF personnel to operate Dakotas";
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "newly-independent nation" --> "newly independent nation";
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "detachment on the island of Morotai" --> "detachment on Morotai island";
 * That's an improvement Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * this sentence seemed a little awkward to me: "In an unusual task, during May..."
 * Tweaked 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does the trick. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder about spliting the paragraph beginning: "In an unusual task, during May..."
 * Do you mean the next paragraph about the unit's service in Malaya? If so, I've just done this. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Sorry, copy paste error. Your change looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "During the 1950s and early 1960s No. 38 Squadron developed a reputation as a "cowboy" unit with lax flying standards. The squadron did not conduct proper conversion courses, and new Dakota pilots received only ad-hoc instruction on the type while serving as the co-pilot during operational tasks. In addition, veteran pilots generally did not attempt to pass on their experiences to trainees." Were there any consequences of this?
 * Funnily enough, none of the sources note any... I did look for this - it seems that the unit was not doing its job properly, but not in such a bad way that it contributed to accidents. I would imagine that the new pilots who received conversion training with this squadron needed further training once they reached an operational squadron. The RAAF's flying standards in general seem to have left a lot to be desired in this era. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "One of the tasks of this detachment" --> "One of the detachment's tasks";
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "further five newly-built aircraft" --> "further five newly built aircraft". AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Change made. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, the article looks good for A-class to me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support
 * Did a fair bit of copyediting and a couple of additions, let me know if I mucked up or you disagree with anything. Happy with the prose now except this: In addition to its training role, No. 38 Squadron participated in transport operations in and around Australia, including in response to natural disasters. -- the last clause grates a bit but I admit I couldn't think of a better way of expressing it, maybe someone else can...
 * All those changes look good to me - thanks a lot. I've slightly tweaked that sentence to make it a bit clearer - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverage, referencing and supporting materials (incl. image licensing) seem fine.
 * Structure-wise, and following on from my points at the top of the page, I don't have a major issue with the "Current status" section at the end, though my personal preference is for a "Role" (or similarly named/themed) section right after the lead, such as in my recent No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF. Since both these articles are up for ACR at the same time, be interested in finding out if reviewers have a preference either way, since it'd be good to standardise... Anyway, well done on this! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Ian Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 6 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 one (minor) issue with reference consolidation:
 * RAAF_HS_68 (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Images are all PD or free and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) (no action req'd).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
 * Typo here: "No. 38 Squadron moved from Richmond to RAAF Base Amberley, the west of Brisbane, in October 1992...", should probably be "No. 38 Squadron moved from Richmond to RAAF Base Amberley, west of Brisbane, in October 1992."
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise excellent. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "a detachment on Morotai Island, which dropped supplies": a Morotai Island detachment that dropped supplies. I know that it sounds like you're talking about a specific detachment, and that would make the "that" nonrestrictive, but the "a" is indefinite enough to call for "that" rather than "which", usually. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "new Dakota pilots ... while serving as the co-pilot": ... while serving as co-pilots
 * Hmm, given that there was only one co-pilot per Dakota that's a bit confusing IMO. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "transported United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan personnel and supplies": transported personnel and supplies for the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan. Long strings of nouns are harder to parse.
 * Massive improvement: thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Three King Air 350s were transferred to No. 38 Squadron from the Army's 173rd Surveillance Squadron on 20 November 2009, and deliveries of further five newly built aircraft were completed in July 2010.": ... a further five. Also, I'm not sure if you're saying that these five aircraft are newly built King Air 350s.
 * Done: they were brand-new King Airs. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


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