Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North-Eastern Area Command (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 by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Following on from the ACR for North-Western Area Command last month, I present one for the other half of the former Northern Area Command that had covered the whole of Northern Australia and Papua New Guinea. Like NWA, NEA was right in the frontline of the Pacific War in its early period. You'll note, however, that after an action-packed first year the level of detail in the article tapers off, which I think is a fair reflection of the sources and the diminishing importance of NEA in the war effort. As witness, the Americans took direct control of USAAF units in the area from mid-1942, the RAAF formed No. 9 Operational Group (Northern Command from April 1944) a few months later, denuding NEA of its units in New Guinea, and by the time Australia acquired a heavy bomber force of B-24 Liberators in January 1945 the place to base them was NWA. Like NWA, NEA continued to operate after the war but it had little to do operationally except oversee maritime patrol by its Townsville-based Lincoln squadron, until being consigned to history by the RAAF's reorganisation into a functional command-and-control structure. As ever, I look forward to any and all comments! Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Ian, looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * tech review: alt text is present; ext links all work; no dabs;
 * images seem appropriately licenced to me;
 * article is well referenced and the prose seemed fine to me;
 * in the first paragraph, "Queensland" is linked on second mention, although I suspect you have done this to avoid having two linked terms side-by-side;
 * That was my reasoning though I admit it's produced a bit of an anomaly here; my first instinct is to leave as is but it's not a huge deal...
 * suggest linking "New Britain" on first mention;
 * "J.H. Summers" --> Summers' full name was John Hamilton Summers. Photo here:
 * "US invasion of New Britain" --> probably could link to New Britain campaign
 * "SWPA was dissolved and RAAF Headquarters again assumed full control of all its operational formations, including the area commands..." --> was there some level of demobilisation at play here? If so, I wonder if that could be mentioned (wouldn't need to be more than half a sentence, I think). Thoughts?
 * Certainly demobilisation was occurring but double-checking Stephens in Going Solo it seems the main thing was simply that SWPA was a wartime expedient and once the war was over full control over RAAF elements reverted to RAAF Headquarters, as it was before SWPA.
 * Following up, Rupert, after actioning your related comment at the Western Area ACR I found a spot in this article where I think mentioning demob worked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "P.G. Heffernan" --> Heffernan's full name was Patrick George Heffernan. Ref:
 * in the References, I think Ashworth should come before the Australian War Memorial (alphabetically)
 * in the References, link "Allen & Unwin" for consistency
 * Many tks Rupert -- all done except were noted, and happy to discuss further of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, Ian, looks fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments That's it for me. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Each was led by...": on first pass, I read this as referring to the roles of air defence, etc... before realising this was in relation to the area commands. Would it be unduly repetitive to have area commands in successive sentences? I.e. "Each area command was led by..."
 * Fair enough, I just said "area" to reduce the repetition a bit while being clearer.
 * What was the NEA initial OOB? It seems that at first it was only 24 Squadron but this is not explicitly stated.
 * Oddly enough, an OOB is given in the operations record book but it seems confused as it includes units at Darwin (North-Western Area's HQ and main air base) and leaves out units at Townsville (NEA's HQ and main air base) -- so I think it'd be best not to include it. FWIW, we do have an OOB from only a few months later, i.e. April 1942.
 * Do we know the number of headquarters personnel at the time of its formation or shortly afterwards? It may be useful to get an idea of its growth from creation, or at least shortly after its creation, to August 1942 when its size is first mentioned.
 * Agreed, not sure why I left it out.
 * An OOB as of the end of the war would be nice, if it is available (suspect not, as I'm sure you would have mentioned it).
 * I would've liked to include it too but, as you guessed, it's not spelt out.
 * Tks for taking the time to review, Zawed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All good Ian, I have added my support. Good work. Zawed (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments  by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) G'day Ian, this article looks to be in good shape. I have a few minor suggestions:
 * Two units to coordinate fighter operations, Nos. 3 and 4 Fighter Sector Headquarters, were established at Townsville and Port Moresby, respectively, on 25 February. is a bit clunky. I suggest refactoring it, maybe into two sentences? On 25 February, Nos. 3 and 4 Fighter Sector Headquarters were established to coordinate fighter operations. They were based at Townsville and Port Moresby respectively.
 * Heh, fair enough.
 * it would be good to know what sort of aircraft were operated by each squadron when they are first mentioned in the text. ie No. 76 Squadron (Kittyhawks) or something like that. I feel it would add significantly to an appreciation of the span of command and the types being operated. Then if they changed aircraft, doing the same when they are mentioned next. For the non-RAAFies like me, it helps a lot.
 * Agree, I generally try to do that. I'll double-check the sources and if an aircraft type is mentioned in the same breath, I'll add it in. I'm always a bit leery of synthesizing a source that says a unit was at a certain place at a certain time, with another that says that around this time the unit operated this aircraft type (or types!) as there was quite a bit of chopping and changing during the war.
 * Following up, I've noted all the aircraft types that are clearly mentioned when referring to the squadrons (including, now, 76SQN during Milne Bay) but unfortunately the list of units following the formation of Eastern Area comes from NEA's operations book, which is very useful for checking squadron movements but not what they operated at any given time... :-( Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * it would be good to clarify (if that was the case) that Garing was at Milne Bay himself. Perhaps by adding During the battle, in front of "Cobby exercised..."
 * Okay, will double-check the source to get the right wording.
 * No. 42 RDF Wing should probably be in full
 * While I know what it stands for, I've never know it to be spelt out in the wing's name sources, but it's also rendered as No. 42 (Radar) Wing, which should do the trick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and "was " succeeded by?
 * I think it was okay English as was but not no prob changing it.
 * I think the orbat section would benefit from having the aircraft type included after each squadron.
 * Again I agree but (also again!) the source omitted the aircraft types and I'd prefer not to synthesize if I can help it -- hopefully I'll be able to mention relevant aircraft types in the text anyway per our discussion above. Tks for stopping by, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think all actioned as best I can now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Image and source review by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * all images seem properly licensed, and all sources appear reliable, and are properly formatted.
 * Much appreciated, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2016 (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.