Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 86 Wing RAAF


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


 * Promoted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No. 86 Wing RAAF

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Hmm, A-Class, A-Class... Let's see if I can remember how this goes... Oh, yes, my second RAAF wing nomination, following No. 82 last year. This one isn't quite as glamorous as the other, being transport rather than strike (although it did start out as an attack wing in WWII), but on the other hand it's probably the hardest-working formation in the RAAF, because practically no military deployment can operate without it. Not quite as long an article as No. 82's either, but then this wing was disbanded from 1964 to 1987 (you'll find the reasoning in the article), whereas No. 82 has -- uniquely I believe -- been in continuous existence since WWII. The article's recently passed GA, so pls have at it... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: G'day, Ian, I couldn't find much to fault with this one. I made a couple of minor tweaks (please check you are happy with those) and have the following observations:
 * is something missing here: "The squadron returned to Australia and the aegis of No. 86 Wing two years later..."?
 * Just using "aegis" in the sense of "control", since I'd used "controlled" in the previous sentence -- I'm not wed to it if you think we can do better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * the duplicate link checker tool reports that No. 77 Squadron might be overlinked. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I left the second because it was previously mentioned under WWII but the article's not that big so I don't mind losing it. Tks for review and support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Can't see anything wrong with it. However: I can see at a glance that the 86 Wing crest dates back to before 1953, and so is out of copyright in Australia. If it was used in WWII, then no fair use rationale is required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen it painted on the nose of Dakotas in Korea -- you may find one of them adorning my upcoming article on No. 91 Wing RAAF... No idea if it was created during WWII though. Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer.
 * A few suggestions:
 * "tanker/transport": I don't remember what conclusion we came to in the previous article on what's the best way to say this.
 * "then-Officer Commanding No. 86 Wing": I recommend omitting "then-" here. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan -- took care of "tanker/transport" as we did for the Herc article (sorry I missed that earlier); I used "then" 'cos the OC had changed from the one originally mentioned and I hadn't noted the change-over ('cos I don't know when it happened) -- if you think that's being too careful, I'll omit it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If he was relatively new in the position, I'd say "the new"; if not, I guess what you have is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


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