Talk:No. 1 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Nice work Ian - there's an impressive level of detail here on what was a fairly little-known unit. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• "undertook its own conversion training until it disbanding in" - this is a bit passive (how about "The squadron ran its own conversion courses until it disbanded in..."? - the two 'it's aren't great though)
  • I'm not sure the expression was passive before but I have altered in a way that I think makes it a little more punchy... ;-)
• A link to Operational conversion unit somewhere would probably be in order
  • Good idea -- done.
• "and to add fighting ability to the pure flying skills they had already learned" - this is a bit unclear (how 'and to provide them with training in combat tactics'? - I also think that pilots of this era received basic training in delivering weapons as part of their initial training at the bombing and gunnery schools)
  • You're right of course, but Stephens doesn't mention pre-conversion weapons training -- I've tried to correct any misconception by removing "pure" though...
• "the task was made technically challenging by virtue of the Canberra's single control column" - this could be a bit more explicit (I presume the issue was that the qualified Canberra pilot couldn't grab the controls if the trainee messed up)
  • Again, Stephens doesn't really elaborate on the single-stick issue but I've tweaked the expression based on what we have.
• "On 11 September 1964, one of its Canberras was intercepted by a Sabre fighter of No. 76 Squadron based at RAAF Base Darwin" - was this a training exercise, or was the Canberra intercepted as it wasn't identified coming into Darwin?
  • Neither 1OCU’s nor 76Sqn's unit histories have been digitised, and David Wilson doesn't state it explicitly in either of the two articles he wrote on Handover but in both, immediately after mentioning this, he talks about the Sabre's training exercises, the contrast strongly suggesting that the Canberra interception was due to an assumed threat, not as part of training. I re-checked Emergency and Confrontation in the Mitchell and it didn’t even mention Handover (!), so if you can think of another way to express it that doesn't involve OR, I'm all ears!
    • Fair enough: things seem to have been pretty tense at that time, and No. 79 Squadron RAAF's experiences at Ubon are an interesting comparison to the tactics which would have been used here. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Were the dual control aircraft also transferred to No. 2 Squadron?
  • Surprisingly, Units just said "personnel" were transferred and Stewart Wilson said nothing, but double-checked Highest Traditions and Bennett was kind enough to say yes, they were, while RAAF News gave the total number of Canberras involved, if not a breakdown...
    • Nice find! Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• You might want to check with Bidgee to see if he has a photo of the Canberra at the RAAF Museum
  • Will do -- I made another scan of Commons, AWM, Flickr, etc, before nominating here but no luck with a free image.
• I'd suggest tweaking the title of the T.4 photo to make it clear that it's not an ex-1 OCU aircraft Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh, that was my intention but I guess it didn't come out that way -- try it now.
• Ian, I'm going to be out of town until Wednesday, and will follow up on this review then - sorry about any delays which result. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't get out of it that easily... ;-) Re. your opening remark, yep, this is one of those articles that seemed on the cusp of GA-level detail when I wrote it and, having let it 'bed down' for six months or so and checked round for any more info, I was satisfied that it covered the subject adequately. Tks for reviewing so promptly! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries - you caught me just before I logged off. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

   Many tks, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)