Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 84 Wing RAAF


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

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No. 84 Wing RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

A companion piece to the recent No. 86 Wing expansion and ACR, the RAAF's other transport formation, which also started life in another guise during World War II, in this case as an army cooperation wing. Re-formed much more recently than 86, this one always seemed to to be the poor relation in terms of hard facts but I think finally has enough to make the grade. Also recently passed GAN. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:
 * "The wing comprises..." I'd have gone for semi-colons between the squadrons, rather than commas, to make it easier to read at speed, but that might just be my dodgy grammar! :)
 * I agree -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Formed in 1944 for army co-operation duties in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II," I had to click on army coop duties to work out what it was; personally, "close air support" would have been clearer. (Insert time gap as I read through the main text...) Although perhaps I'd have assumed more offensive CAS then, rather than their non-offensive duties. Hmm. Not an easy one.
 * Yes, I think that's the thing, that "CAS" is probably generally understood to mean ground attack, whereas "army co-op" is perhaps considered a little more benign, which is more in keeping with 84 Wing's true role. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "As the navigational efficiency of the New Zealander pilots increased" I read this as suggesting that their navigators were pretty poor before; either way, it might be worth unpacking it slightly.
 * The source expresses it as "improvement in the standard of training and map-reading by New Zealand pilots" -- happy to take suggestions re. wording... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything better! - your wording sounds fine to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Transport formation..." - A minor point, but on the screen, these paragraphs felt very long and detailed as I read through them; I'd consider if if 4 shorter paras rather than 3 might make them easier to read. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, and took the liberty of splitting the longest of the three WWII paras as well. Tks for review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No prob's, enjoyed reading it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * " in the words of the official history, "the eyes of the battalion commanders"." -- whose official history? Just need a quick clarity of who created the "official" version.
 * I linked and spelt out official history of the RAAF in the Pacific in the previous paragraph so didn't feel it necessary to re-link/re-explain... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * " the wing lost one Auster, one Wirraway, and one Boomerang on operations." -- Any indication as to whether these were in combat or due to mechanical failure/weather?
 * Source doesn't elaborate, I'm afraid. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Beginning of "Transport formation:" Just wondering, was there ever a stated reason why this particular unit was selected to be revived, and/or background on logistical need that resulted in the standing up of an additional transport wing?
 * The RAAF has a history of reviving old unit numbers, both at wing and squadron level, especially if there's at least a vague connection between the old and new roles; in this case, 84WG's WWII and initial post-war roles were both connected with army support. However this is OR, just my observation -- I don't think I've seen it written down anywhere... ;-) As to the particular need, I think we can only infer that it was a means of collecting their two existing tactical/battlefield transport squadrons under the one roof. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could elaborate on the difference between a tactical transport wing and a special transport wing?
 * A fair question! Yes we can (to coin a phrase) but more by implication than direct comparison. "Tactical transport" is closely connected with army support, and I do mention that role for the Caribous. "Special transport" in the RAAF is most commonly associated with VIP tasks, and all three of the units in its special transport incarnation had that role, 34SQN primarily and 32/33SQNs part-time. I may be able to include something that defines "special transport" in those terms, and I've already added that 32SQN did VIP work in addition to its other roles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added brief explanation of "special transport". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I found no disambiguation links, and no duplicate links. All external links appear to be working. Spotted no reliability issues with references. All images appear to be properly licensed. I see no issues with article stability or neutrality.
 * Just some quick comments, nothing major. — Ed! (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Ed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Good work! — Ed! (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "trainer/transports", " tanker/transports": I think I remember you changed these in another article, per WP:SLASH.
 * "AOP flight": AOP Flight
 * Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


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