Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Peter Raw


 * 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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Raw

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

At the risk of getting into a demarcation dispute with Ian Rose, I'd like to nominate this article on one of the Royal Australian Air Force's most prominent officers during the 1950s and 1960s for A-class. Raw served with distinction in World War II, surviving a mission in which his plane was severely damaged, and was eventually appointed to command the service's first jet bomber squadron in 1953. He also participated in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race, in which he placed second. In 1965 Raw assumed command of the RAAF force in South Vietnam, a role for which he was not well prepared, and his actions during the Battle of Long Tan badly damaged relations between the RAAF and Army. He eventually retired from the service as a Air Commodore in 1978.

I started this article in 2011, and have developed it in fits and starts (with input from lots of other editors); a highlight was going through a box of news stories on Raw held by the National Library of Australia. It passed a GA nomination in June 2013, and after including additional material from Raw's Australian Dictionary of Biography entry (published 2012) and stories from the NLA's superb Trove online newspaper database, I'm hopeful that it might now be of A-class status. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support by Peacemaker
More to come. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC) That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Long Tan was in 66, not 65.
 * oops! Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally know one of the 9 Sqn pilots that flew the casevac at Long Tan, a Korea veteran well known for bravery. In the 1980's, apocryphal tales of the poor support provided to the Army in Vietnam by RAAF helo's were endemic. I think the observations of Wing Commander Scott, as relayed in an appendix to McAulay's The Battle of Long Tan would be useful here. Scott defends Raw and has some interesting things to say. Given Long Tan was defining in terms of Raw's career, I think Scott's comments would be a valuable addition. McAuley (a soldier) is a highly credible and respected source for something as controversial as the RAAF at Long Tan.
 * Second that -- McAuley has written several RAAF-related books so he has good credentials re. both Air Force and Army history (bit like Chris Coulthard-Clark, a Duntroon graduate who became an official RAAF historian). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll see if I can find a copy. I have read various sources which argue that the Army's perception of the overall support provided by the RAAF in the Vietnam War was wrong-headed, and the transfer of the helicopters to the Army was driven more by myths than hard evidence. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We could write a whole article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added material from McAuley's book. There wasn't much on Raw's role in the battle - the book side-steps the issue of his actions at the start of the engagement, focusing on a defence of No. 9 Squadron's competency (which I've added some material on) and the exaggerated version of the dispute which developed. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy with those additions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * a couple of pics need alt text (incl in infobox, per this - not an ACR requirement
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * all other toolchecks are green
 * not sure what version of English is being used, but suggest re-apply rather than reapply.
 * Not sure about that: the Macquarie Dictionary uses 'reapply' Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I always thought it was a hyphen between vowels, no matter.
 * "was commissioned as an officer in December that year", what rank? PLTOFF or FLGOFF? There is no mention of a rank until FLTLT.
 * The source doesn't say I'm afraid Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bugger.
 * watch the comma consistency after a date start to a sentence. ie In May 1944/In July/etc
 * his wife should just be Maggs (or Dorothy) after introduction (not very gentlemanly is it?)
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the citations after "was demobilised on 17 January 1946" are not in numerical order
 * I'm a bit of a comma Nazi, but I reckon "On his return to Australia",
 * suggest "and was confirmed in this rank in January"
 * Ian has kindly fixed these Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Raw's role in the Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966 was remains controversial"?
 * I don't think that it's controversial any more. While it led to much squabbling between the services, the recent sources all agree that Raw made a questionable call in not initially authorising the supply flight, and that the Army then spent years over-reacting (RAAF-friendly sources often cheerfully highlight the major problems the Army experienced keeping the helicopters operational during the 1990s after they were transferred from the Air Force, but that's out of scope!). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * I would name Delta Coy, 6 RAR
 * Not sure if it's necessary to be honest - it would add extra details to what's already a fairly busy paragraph, and I don't think it needs to be specified. Is this OK? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say it's a bit weird given that D/6 RAR and Long Tan are so iconic, and it wouldn't add more than a few letters, but OK.
 * I've named the unit (on consideration, I agree with you entirely here - and it makes the article read better to boot). Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good move. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * did the experienced pilots state that the ammunition was important? Or was it just important? Might need re-wording.
 * The source says that the pilot "believed the mission had to be flow regardless of the conditions and the likely cost" without specifying what the pilot's exact motivations were (though the obvious implication is that he believed that the ammunition had to be delivered). I think that the current wording summarises this. Nick-D (talk)
 * I think the current wording is confusing. I suggest dropping the second part of the sentence about the ammunition, its importance has already been covered, and its inclusion immediately after the views of the pilots makes it appear they said that as well.
 * I have deleted the part of the sentence I consider makes it unclear. Feel free to revert. I am now supporting. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian Rose

 * Thought I'd give this a few days before reviewing but couldn't resist having a quick look tonight... ;-) Structure/detail-wise, the first thing that struck me was of course the lack of post-military information -- a common problem for us. Aside from checking for obits in the newspaper files, you might try Who's Who in case he has an entry (not certain but possible) as it will often mention civilian career details.  I might also try to find his obit in the RAAF News back copies at the Mitchell next time I'm there.  Note that this lack doesn't concern me overly for ACR but I think it'd be preferable to get something in there before a possible FAC run. More later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian, I'll also check that - I can access Who's Who at the NLA next weekend. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, walked through the article top to bottom, copyediting as I went, so happy with prose and structure.
 * I think the level of detail is fine. As I said above, post-service info would be useful prior to FAC but is not, I think, absolutely necessary for A-Class. FTR, I found the Vietnam account well-written and balanced, and in line with accounts I've read.
 * Sources are reliable, though I haven't spent much time checking formatting.
 * Image-wise, I suspect the two AWM images would be best served with the addition of, although Nikki or others may have another opinion. Assuming that's resolved one way or t'other, this has my full support. Oh, and as far as demarcation disputes go, Nick, as you haven't given me any grief about writing RAAF squadron articles, I shall spare you my wrath for producing quality RAAF bios... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and edits Ian. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review [Clip and save for FAC!]
All images look fine, copyright-wise. They're a bit on the small size; probably not much we can do about that; however, they're not so small we can't make the thumbnails a bit larger. Given he's a relatively small part of each image compared to those in other articles, I'd up the width of the thumbnails a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Adam. I've bumped up the image sizes a bit Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

 * Support Comments: looks quite good overall, Nick, I just have a couple of suggestions/comments. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "he served in the Vietnam War as the air support coordinator for the Australian forces in South Vietnam..." --> perhaps just "he served as the air support coordinator for the Australian forces in South Vietnam..."
 * That's much better - changed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "but was rejected and told to reapply in twelve months" --> do we know why he was rejected?
 * No, afraid not. At this stage of the war the technical branches of the military seemed to have more suitably-qualified volunteers than they had jobs for, and I expect that this was the answer (the RAAF had to put suitable pilot candidates on a waiting list type arrangement at one stage!). Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the link at "these flights" is potentially a little ineligant, perhaps if you moved the link to a place a little earlier in the narrative it might solve this. For instance, "...No. 178 Squadron, undertook several risky operations as part of the Warsaw airlift to supply...."
 * Thanks for that suggestion - changed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "aid on the northern Italian city of Verona on 12 October" --> probably best to add "1944" here for clarity given you have mentioned 1945 a bit earlier which might confuse some readers;
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is something missing here: "...surrounded and, as he believed that the heavy rain at the time made flying too dangerous" (the "and, as..." doesn't seem to ring true to my ear);
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The commander of the 1st Australian Task Force..." --> I suggest just saying "1 ATF" and introducing the abbreviation earlier
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * is there an issn and place of publication that could be added for the Wartime magazine entry in the Bibliography?
 * Yes - I'd added the ISSN, but I don't think that place of publishing (or publisher) is common for journal-type entries. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's something I've started adding in since my publisher asked me to do it for something I wrote offline, but it's not a warstoper. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * is there an oclc number that could be added to the Bibligraphy for the Herington work? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, added. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, always a pleasure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2014 (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. 