The first unit formed by the Royal Australian Air Force in 1921, No. 1 Flying Training School (FTS) went through some dizzying changes of name and role during its 70-year history. For 20 years it was, despite the numbering, the RAAF's only flying school, before becoming just one of many intermediate/advanced (or "service") training schools during World War II. Afterwards it was again the only FTS, until the pressures of the Cold War led to it splitting into three and becoming responsible for advanced (or "applied") training only. By the 1970s it was one of two RAAF flying schools and its role had changed again, this time to basic training. Rationalisation finally saw it disbanded in 1993. The article comes to you fresh from a successful MilHist A-Class Review, which I decided to undertake after finally unearthing all the rationales for the unit's twists and turns over the years -- not to mention a decent copy of its crest. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I've since create a redirect for No. 1 AFTS to this article, complementing the existing redirect for No. 1 SFTS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
File:1FTSCrest.jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder
Okay, will do.
File:128863VampireT.33.jpg: how do we know that the government held copyright? Also, I realize that the CC-1.0 tag appears on the source website, but it doesn't seem to be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose we're taking it on good faith that when the government asserts the copyright status for an image of one of its elements then it knows what it's talking about...! Not that governments don't make mistakes of course, but it'd be odd for an air-to-air photo like this not to be taken by RAAF personnel. As to the tag, what was the reasoning for it not appearing to be correct? This file was subject to a deletion request a year ago and the result was to keep it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The description at the source page suggests that the copyright is expired, but the tag doesn't reflect that - instead, it suggests that the copyright holder is releasing the image to the public domain. Even if AWM were the original copyright holder, they can't release a copyright that no longer stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, it's late here and I'm about to hit the sack, so I welcome any suggestions...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Update: The file has since been moved to Commons by another editor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment Leaning support, very good job, about two thirds done, will finish soon:
I would suggest less emphasis on the formation and reformation and dissolution and renaming bit, and more on what they did and how they did it.
Fair enough -- I think the lead is a good place for a succinct account of the reorgs (and, more importantly, the reasons for reorg) so I'd like to retain that, but I will see about adding a bit more on what and how at given points, e.g. the number of grads from 1SFTS during the war.
"Under this plan" as you have not specifically mentioned a plan, suggest "Under its plan"
Tweaked to something similar.
"Squadron Leader McNamara again assumed command of No. 1 FTS in October 1930" Promotion's kinda slow, even with a VC, ain't it? (no action required)
"and again to sixteen weeks two months later" Perhaps this would be an opportune time to add something like "as the need for aircrew diminished" or words to that effect.
We could, but I felt that "duration varied during the war as demand for aircrew fluctuated" effectively covered that off, plus we go into the diminishing need for aircrew in some depth in the next paragraph...
"The initial complement of 52 aircraft at No. 1 SFTS " I would suggest either a date or else strike "initial" (which I don't like because it's just a new name on an old establishment) and add "at the time of formation"
"who went on to take charge of Station Headquarters Point Cook in October." I assume "who" is King. But why is this germane?
Pragmatism, really... I've mentioned the start and end dates of all the notable commanders in the text, rather than cite them in the infobox and clutter that up, hence the bit about King leaving his post in October; I figured then that I may as well add the new post as it was command of the base where 1SFTS was located.
"EATS graduates" while it's clear what this is to anyone who's paying attention, you haven't actually defined this acronym.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
One more thing. I just checked the first volume of Hocking's bio of Whitlam to see if he passed through there and he did not. But names of famous graduates (you cite a couple) may liven things up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
1FTS was the only flying school pre-war, so almost everyone who became prominent in the post-war RAAF had been through it; I mentioned notable grads of 1SFTS because it was just one of 12 such schools at the time. As flying instruction was split between the FTS system and RAAF College in 1947-58, I will see if any notables are specifically mentioned as graduating from 1FTS during that period as well. Many tks for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I've addressed everything as best I can for now, so let me know what you think. Re. my comment above, I'd like to have mentioned a sergeant pilot who graduated from the FTS system in 1952 (around the time most officers came from RAAF College) and who went on to become Chief of the Air Staff, but the sources are a little imprecise and convoluted so I think best leave it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
Off the top of my head, I don't recall any article passing FAC that had bolding in the main text as this one does. WP:MOSBOLD seems to recommend against it (which may or may not constitute a prohibition, for a FAC) unless some other article redirects to a section, the bolded term is near the top of the section, and the reader is likely to be confused why they wound up where they did without the clue provided by the bolding. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this will set a precedent at FAC then... ;-) FWIW, it didn't cause any issues at MilHist ACR. I'm open to further discussion of course, but for now I'd stand by my response to Curly Turkey's query on the subject above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Dan, re-reading your comment (and Curly's), perhaps I've misunderstood... Is it only the bolding in the main body that concerns you, rather than in the lead? If the former, then I have no issue with losing it, my main interest was in retaining it in the lead for the reasons I've stated (rather like the way we present people known by more than one name, e.g. David Bowie). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, I'll say "below the lead section" from now on rather than "in the main text". Yes, the best I can tell, WP:MOSBOLD recommends against bolding after the lead section except in specific cases that don't seem to apply here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, on the same page now -- unbolded in the main body... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments: The article looks very detailed, and you've done well to record such a tortuous history. I'm not familiar with the subject matter, so my remarks are mainly quibbles about presentation, grammar etc. I inserted one word into the lead which I thought ought to be there.
The entire text is contained within a "History" section. If the whole article is the history of the unit, I'd be inclined to drop the History section, and raise the three subsections to level 2
I get you, but the convention with the many articles on defunct RAAF units is to have a History section following the lead. When I work on an extant unit (e.g. No. 34 Squadron RAAF) then I put a Role and equipment section, describing its current state, before History, and simply leave that out when it's not applicable.
"was effectively No. 1 FTS's first commanding officer." Why "effectively"? If he was in charge of the base, surely he was the unit's first commanding officer?
Heh, not that simple in the military I'm afraid... ;-) The commander of a base may have authority over the commander of a lodger unit, but the unit still generally has its own CO. In this case, however, I'm not sure where I got "effectively" from and can just as easily (and correctly) say that Anderson, "who was also in charge of the Point Cook base, was No. 1 FTS's first commanding officer" or some such.
"The school's initial complement of staff was twelve officers and 67 airmen." I've just been chided in my own current FAC for mixing words and numerals in the same sentence.
Mmm, and I've been chided in the past for using words rather than figures for numerals, but I prefer the former owing to the plethora of unit numbers in military articles, hence my consistency in this one of using words for numerals under 20. So if I pursue that and go with "twelve officers and sixty-seven airmen", will I be carpeted for that, I wonder...?
"Basic instruction took place on the Avro 504K, and more advanced or specialised training on the other types." Two points: first part of the sentence reads as though the school only had one Avro 504K ("on Avro 504Ks"?); also the wording "on the other types" is a bit loose, perhaps better as "on other aircraft".
That's valid militarese, the Avro (of which we'd mentioned earlier there were several) being one type of aircraft, and the other types being, well, other types, but if you think it's confusing to the layman I can bring it closer to what you suggest.
"Anderson formally took command" – "resumed command"?
I thought using the link twice in one sentence was a bit much, though I grant you duplicate piped or redirect links are generally accepted.
"again assumed" → "resumed"?
Pedantry, but "latter pair" means the second of two pairs, not the last two of three items; suggest "the last two of these" or some such.
Never really liked the wording as it was myself, and Pedant is my middle name, so fair enough!
Final para of "Early years": Two courses a year, with apparently 12 places on each. Yet, final senetence, 96 pilots trained each year. That seems like more than two courses a year.
Well the 12 places each on two courses was in 1932, and the 96 per year was in 1938, so that is time to expand; I'll double-check the sources to see if it becomes clear whether that was due to more or larger courses (fingers crossed).
Another misuse of "latter": "...the latter two being the mainstays."
"The RAAF's first post-war flying training course at the school consisted of 42 students and commenced in February 1948, graduating in August the following year." The grammar here looks rocky; surely, it is the students that graduate, not the course?
Another sentence I wasn't really happy with, that's probably why...
Excuse my ignorance, but is the American "fulfill" the approved Aussie spelling, rather than "fulfil"?
No. 1 FTS was formed in 1921 and finally disbanded in 1993; that's 72 years, which doesn't really qualify as "almost 80 years of flying".
It's almost 80 years of flying at Point Cook, not almost 80 years of 1FTS.
Suggestion: divide the "Post-war" section, by giving the final paragraph its own heading, perhaps "Closure and aftermath", since this paragraph is not dealing with the active life of the station but with its closure and how it was replaced.
Fair suggestion, and I'd considered something like that myself -- FWIW, one reason I decided to leave it all together was that the CT4 picture was relevant to both the last and second-last paragraphs, and it seems to straddle them quite nicely as is...
I see few problems in sorting these points out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for looking it over, Brian -- I appreciate that, as with Wehwalt, the subject matter isn't exactly in your comfort zone! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Support: I accept your decisions when you've gone against my suggestions, feeling you know much more about this area than I do. Happy to support now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Brian, the changes have definitely made it a better and more accessible article. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW Brian, if you get a chance, a source review would be most welcome... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Sources review: No spotchecks carried out. All links are working; all formats consistent. The sources all look to be of the required standard of quality. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Brian. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Support: Good work, as usual, Ian. I had a look at this article when it went up for Milhist ACR and I see it has been improved since then. Only one minor thing lept out at me when I read it again:
in the infobox, should "1921–1944" and "1946–1993" be presented as "1921–44" and "1946–93" in the Active field for consistency with elsewhere in the infobox? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Tks very much for stopping by again, Rupert. Not only for consistency with the rest of the infobox but based on MOS recommendations I think it should indeed be "1921–44" and "1946–93". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)