Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North-Western 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 Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

North-Western Area Command (RAAF)

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Bringing articles on the two most important RAAF area commands to ACR simultaneously. Eastern Area became a key command after World War II, because it controlled most of the RAAF's operational units and was therefore well-placed to evolve into Home Command (later Operational Command and now Air Command) when the Air Force switched from a geographically based command-and-control system to one based on function. North-Western Area, OTOH, gained its greatest prominence during the war and for one very good reason – it was there, right in the path of Japan's major air offensives against northern Australia and, ipso facto, the best placed to deliver offensives of its own against Japanese forces in the Dutch East Indies; it is after all the only RAAF area command to have a campaign named after it! Like the other area command articles I've put together, these are both GA but I felt that the depth of coverage for these two could qualify them as A-Class. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Support: couldn't really find much that I could pick fault with. Good work as usual, Ian: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * images seem appropriately licenced;
 * I cropped (very slightly): File:13 Squadron RAAF Hudson aircrew Hughes NT Feb 1943 AWM NWA0074.jpg
 * the article seems well referenced and broad in its coverage;
 * citations seem consistent (in style);
 * prose seemed quite good (I fixed a minor typo);
 * "resulted in eight Spitfires crashing..." were they shot down, or were these from equipment failure or pilot error?
 * Expanded/clarified.
 * "on the assumption that this was where the Japanese raiders were based": was it accurate (i.e. the assumption?)
 * Yes/added.
 * " Adrian "King" Cole..." is the nickname necessary?
 * Well I like the nicknames but since the cited source didn't use it I won't either... ;-)
 * I suggest moving the link for MacArthur to the first mention and including the full name on first mention
 * Definitely, that was an oversight.
 * should No. 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit RAAF be linked?
 * Could, but it would just redirect to 87SQN, which is linked immediately after, and I'm not sure 1PRU would justify a separate article (of course if there's a guideline I don't know about that we should link both then fair enough)... Tks very much for review/support, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments: That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "ral geographically based commands raised by" - does this mean "created"? Is there a need for jargon here?
 * Hmm, I think I've used it in all the other area command leads so would prefer not to go changing in all of them unless the consensus here is that it shouldn't be employed. "Raised" as a synonym for "formed" or "created" is pretty common in articles I've taken to A/FA-level and it doesn't seem to have been considered jargon by reviewers in the past, even non-MilHist ones...
 * "In February 1954" - consider making this its own para, but I'm not married to it.
 * Well I think it belongs with the previous sentence ("Commencing in October 1953, the RAAF was reorganised...") so I'd like them to remain together, but I'd have no prob with pushing all from and including "Commencing in October 1953" to a new para if you think best.
 * I am curious about the notch in the map just above the Q in Queensland. I believe it may be described in the body, but I think only someone that is already familiar with the local geography would see it. Much of the description it "in situ", referring to other locally understood terms. Perhaps a more general description of the layout could be developed?
 * I fully agree, it is a bit esoteric. The trouble is that this is the only explanation for the "bump" that I've found and unfortunately it doesn't explicitly make reference to that oddity in the boundaries (though it can't really be anything else), nor is the source text accompanied by a map, so I wasn't really comfortable departing too much from the description given. Of course I'm open to suggestions...
 * "having claimed seventy-nine Japanese aircraft destroyed for the loss of twenty-one Kittyhawks" - while I don't doubt their claims, this number strikes me as unlikely given the relative quality of the two combatants. Are there any other sources that might contain a more detailed account? I'm especially troubled due to the exchange ratio with the Spitfires mentioned in the next section, an aircraft that should be generally similar in performance terms at least.
 * That's why I was happy to use the word "claim" as it invites a certain degree of caution. In any case the 2 May ratio was a bit of an aberration for the Spitfires -- the June combat mentioned later showed how it could alter in their favour. If I recall the sources, the US tactic was to target the enemy bombers and avoid dogfights with Zeros, whereas the Spitfires (at least early on) found it harder to resist dogfighting and hence they put themselves at greater risk. I might be able to find something that puts that succinctly -- bit wary of going into too much detail for a command-level article...
 * Many thanks for taking the time to review, Maury! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Support This is a great article Ian, and model for its type. While I think that the A-class criteria are met, I'd like to offer the following suggestions for any further improvements:
 * The half para starting with " No. 79 Wing was subsequently earmarked" could be split out into a separate para with an introductory sentence noting that the command was run down somewhat in this period as the Allied offensive operations sped up.
 * You could note the dull conditions endured by No. 1 Wing from 1944, and the risky operations it undertook solely to break the tedium (see the No. 1 Wing article for details)
 * The decline of the Japanese units facing NWA could also be noted (from memory, Darwin Spitfires covers this and I imagine that the official history does as well)
 * Was NWA responsible for constructing the network of airfields in the Darwin area? If so, this could be expanded on. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that Nick, tks -- being a bit pushed for time I can't guarantee I'll get to these suggestions (which will require a bit of further research) before this review completes, whenever that may be, but I certainly won't look at taking the article to FAC without addressing them, if that works for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * I reviewed this at GA last year. Other than a few very minor tweaks which I made I couldn't find anything to fault it after reading through it again. I believe it easily meets the A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 8 May 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.