Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 90 Wing RAAF/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 [1].

No. 90 Wing RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back as a nominee after a six-month hiatus, I bring you a brief but, I think, comprehensive article on a short-lived RAAF formation that operated in the early years of the Malayan Emergency. No. 90 (Composite) Wing only existed from 1950 to 1952 and controlled only two flying units, but the rationale for its establishment -- more political than operational -- is interesting and explained in some detail, along with an overview of tasking, commanding officers, and disbandment. It hails from a bygone era when RAAF unit names generally advertised their purpose ("Fighter", "Bomber", "Transport", etc) for easy identification, so you may deduce from this that "Composite" basically meant "mixed bag" or, less kindly, "mongrel"... ;-) The article is effectively a potted history of Australia's initial involvement in the Emergency, as the RAAF was the only service to deploy forces until 1955, when Australian Army and RAN units began arriving. This has passed GAN and MilHist ACR, and is part of a Featured Topic. Thanks in advance for all comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:38_Squadron_RAAF_Dakotas_in_Singapore_during_1950.jpeg: this is certainly out of copyright in Australia, but I don't think it would be in the US - pre-1955 photos had a copyright of 50 years, 1950+50 gives an expiration of 2000 which is after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, tks Nikki -- I'd assumed without looking closely that it was an AWM image and licensed accordingly. It seems to be a similar situation to the infobox image, i.e. donated by The Age newspaper to the State Library of Victoria, so will I just match the licensing for that one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I see "This work is out of copyright" on the source pages for both images, but I'm not seeing a reason for it - I would guess it's because Australian copyright has expired on both rather than any rights waiver taking place, unless I'm missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really did think this had been resolved at this image's deletion discussion a while back. Several images from the same source have had similar discussions, and all have been closed as 'keep' AFAIK. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are we sure that the copyrights, and not just the actual photos, were gifted to SLV? Do you have links to the similar discussions? I hate to harp on this, but it's really not clear to me that these should be considered free in the US as things stand, and SLV's copyright declaration isn't clear on rationale or applicability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 15 includes discussions of several post-1945 Australian images as well as this one, some SLV and some AWM, but all declared as out of copyright by their government source, and all were kept. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, we'll go with that then, once the tagging is fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just so I'm clear, Nikki, you mean tag the Dakota picture like the infobox one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks like this one is up to your usual standards, Ian. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations (no action required);
  • "Australian Dakota crews from service in the Berlin Airlift" --> perhaps: "Australian Dakota crews from service during the Berlin Airlift"?
    • Okay.
  • should "No. 224 Group RAF" be linked?
    • Probably, yes.
  • "mindful of repeating the experience of World..." --> "mindful of not repeating the experience of World..."?
    • This is an interesting one: my thinking was that if you're mindful of something then you want to avoid it, and what Jones wanted to avoid was repeating the experience. Then again I could just say "wanted to avoid repeating the experience of World..." but I kinda like the expression as it is unless consensus is against it... ;-)
  • in the References Grey should come before Helson
    • Oops, yes. Tks for your review, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A pleasure to review an article so concise but evidently comprehensive. Meets the FA criteria in my view. I can't fault the prose, the referencing is blessedly clear, and the sourcing suitably wide. Top-notch stuff. Tim riley talk 12:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for stopping by, Tim -- much appreciated! As the UK was kind enough to invite Australia to this party, I was thinking of returning the favour and asking a Brit to comment, but you beat me to it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support While the article is short for a FA, I know from my experience developing the No. 38 Squadron article to FA status that not much has been written on this unit - which isn't surprising given that it was essentially an administrative and logistical headquarters. I've read through the article and, aside from a missing word (I think) couldn't spot anything to comment on or change, and am pleased to support the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/No._90_Wing_RAAF/archive1&oldid=1138467971"