Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 34 Squadron RAAF

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. 34 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


Following on from my earlier noms for Nos. 33 and 36 Squadrons, yet another RAAF transport unit formed in WWII and still flying today. This is Australia's dedicated VIP carrier or, as one Air Force historian succinctly put it, "the private airline of the nation's political leaders". I actually resisted expanding this one for a while as the more "operational" squadrons always seemed more interesting, but in the event I got happily caught up in the convoluted history and inside dope of this unit, and I hope you will too... ;-) Tks to Nick-D for some additional information from his library, and Typing General for the recent GA review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Given that I've added a bit of stuff to this article recently (working out at roughly a small paragraph) I don't think that I should review it, but I'll offer some comments over the next few days.

  • As a starting point, I'd suggest (with emphasis on the word "suggest"!) that the article include a list of all the aircraft types the squadron has operated and the years each type was in service for. While I'm not a fan of articles looking identical, I think that this is useful content, and answers a likely question readers have when consulting the article. If it doesn't look too huge, this could go in the infobox; I appreciate that this is a unit which has operated an unusually large number of types though (eg, compared to the four types No. 38 Squadron has operated in 70 years!). Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point, Nick, and I wouldn't mind doing it in principle, it's just that an exhaustive list would be difficult to get accurate with the available sources. The usage dates of the main types are reasonably certain, but the one- or two-offs like the Anson, Moth, Oxford, DC-2, Prince and Auster (never mind Vampire and Winjeel for good measure!) are harder to pin down as they're generally just mentioned in passing, and I'd prefer not to have (literal) question marks in such a list... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point: this unit does seem to have used an eccentric range of aircraft (I'd love to know where the RAAF managed to find a Vickers Viking and why they decided it would be a good idea to put this ancient type into service!). Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were immediately tasked with transport duties in northern Australia, carrying freight and Japanese prisoners of war" - there would have only been a tiny number of POWs at this time, so this could be de-emphasised
    • I think I gave it the emphasis the source did but then I may have seen elsewhere that it was indeed only a few -- will recheck and perhaps rephrase.
  • The role of No. 33 Squadron in providing VIP flights could be fleshed out a bit more (I imagine that the arrangement was that the 707s handled long distance or large scale tasks while the Falcons were used for domestic and small scale tasks)
    • That'd be right I'm sure, I'll check for an RS that makes the comparison...
      • Curiously, not Units of the RAAF, RAAF Museum, Stephens, McPhedran, or available copies of Air Force News make this comparison explicit, although I think we've at least been able to say a bit more about the differences between the 707 and the smaller 34SQN aircraft. If Eather or Australian Aviation offer a direct comparison, pls let me know... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just added some material on this: it might be a bit long-winded though. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tks, I think the first bit is fair enough as it follows on from the previous info but I might trim the last part (it's in the 33SQN article after all). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The squadron's website says that it provided logistical support during Obama's visit to Canberra, and not flights (though I think that they flew the PM to or from Darwin when Obama went there from Canberra)
    • Interesting -- I borrowed the info/citation from my 84WG article and thought it said then that 34SQN actually flew him but perhaps I'm wrong...
  • If this is headed for FAC, might be worth briefly noting the debate over the squadron's equipment which took place after the Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 disaster killed several Australians who were flying on the aircraft as Alexander Downer's party was too large to fit onto only a BBJ. There was a fair bit of discussion over whether the RAAF needs larger VIP aircraft so that journalists and government officials can safely and conveniently accompany senior ministers and the PM during overseas trips. You might have to look in newspaper archives and Hansard records for this though.
    • Just to show there's method to the madness, I did make a conscious decision when expanding this article to minimise newspaper/Hansard refs and let the history books carry the story. In this case McPhedran discusses it and I just left it out because I thought it might be a tad complicated, but happy to have a go since you mention it... ;-)
      • That's a good principle for this article: when I Googled the squadron it returned lots of shock-horror type news stories about the cost of its flights and the like (many of which seem to have been based around an assumption that no value at all should be placed on the time or energy of the PM and ministers, which seems rather silly to me). Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the topic of Hansard, this might be useful. Not surprisingly, the squadron is frequently mentioned in Parliament.
    • Ditto previous response, OTOH it might make sense to slot in some of that to contrast with today's stats.
  • Is the incident where PM Rudd abused an attendant [1] worth mentioning? (it's probably more important to Rudd than the squadron, though a notable part of the incident was that the aircraft's captain confronted Rudd during the flight and asked that he apologise [hinted at here, but it was explicitly reported elsewhere).
    • Again, I decided against it because I figured it was only in the newspapers but in re-checking McPhedran I find he mentions it so I guess by my standards for inclusion that means it goes in... ;-)
  • On a happier note, I've read that senior politicians sometimes help the attendants load the Challengers during flights out of remote airfields. I'll see if I can find a reference for this. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks, will check McPhedran too as it's the sort of tidbit he likes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, McPhedran doesn't refer to something like this so if you have a book or journal ref that'd be great. Alternatively he mentions the flight attendants organising catering in remote areas through hotels or even improvising via the local supermarket, which we could add if desperate... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My feeling is the article's probably detailed enough unless there's some really interesting and properly sourced tidbit lying around... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I would tell you about my edits, but I didn't make any. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan -- perfection at last, now I can retire! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind, and no you can't retire :) - Dank (push to talk) 09:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • No dab links [2] (no action req'd).
    • External links check reveals a dead link [3]:
      • Gillison, Royal Australian Air Force , p. 481 (info) [awm.gov.au]
        • Good old AWM rejigging its urls yet again... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [4] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Images appear to either be free or have an appropriate FUR. Captions look fine.
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [5] (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate link per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
    • Wonder if the ISSN, publisher and location of publishing could be added here (in the refs section)? "Moclair, Tony (December 2013). "34SQN". Australian Aviation (Issue 311)."
      • Have to leave that to Nick... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added it now using details from Worldcat.org. Hopefully its up to scratch. Anotherclown (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've always used WorldCat just to get OCLCs, didn't think of it for an ISSN -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read through the entire article and couldn't find any issues with prose or MOS compliance. Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a look and checked the image licencing. Not a lot jumped out at me except a minor typo that I fixed. Good work, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/No._34_Squadron_RAAF&oldid=586537756"