Talk:No. 450 Squadron RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 05:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

It's good to see this article at GAN, and I'm pleased to be reviewing it. As a bit of a disclaimer, I'm going to be out of town for a week from Friday, but I will be checking in regularly, so it might take me a bit longer than best practice to finish the review. I have the following comments:

• I'd suggest including a short explanation of what the Article XV squadrons were in the first part of the History section
  • This is now my only outstanding comment Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    • G'day, Nick, I've added something on this quickly. Not sure if it meets the requirements. Ian: please take a look when you get a chance and adjust as you see fit. Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
      • That looks great, and I'm pleased to pass the review Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Tks Nick for that result, and Rupert for the hard yards, apologies time was against me re. actual edits. What I did manage to do while in the Mitchell was discover some discrepancies in the sources that, while not killers for GAN, we should try and resolve before ACR and/or FAC. Will mention in main talk page area rather than here, anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Was "No. 260/450 Squadron" an emergency measure used to reinforce the RAF units operating in Syria when the invasion proved much more difficult than expected? (from memory, lots of ad-hoc units were rushed to the theatre at about this time)
  • Not sure, sorry, I've added a little bit more about 260 not having any ground personnel, but beyond that I haven't found anything that specifically states this. I'd say you are right, and I've looked through my photocopies of the Eather and Barnes sources and the pdfs of Herington, but they all seem silent on this (unless I've missed something). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. This unit also doesn't seem to be identified in Gavin Long's Greece, Crete and Syria judging from its index. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • None of Barnes, Brown, Eather or the RAAF Historical Section address the reasoning except to suggest a neat fit, 450 having ground crew but no pilots and 260 having pilots but no ground crew! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• The para starting with "The squadron remained active for most of the war" breaks up the narrative flow a bit given it jumps ahead to 1943 in parts, and notes the squadron's final status - can its contents be moved to other sections? (for instance, the statistic for Feb 1942-May 1943 might best belong at the end of the material on the unit's role in North Africa and Tunisia)
  • I've reworked this a little to hopefully address this concern. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• When did the Squadron move to Malta and commence operations over Sicily?
  • 13 July 1943 according to Barnes. I've tweaked this. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Ditto RAAF Historical Section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Following the Allied victory in Sicily on 1 August, Nos. 450 and 3 Squadrons moved to Agnone, near Catania, where they commenced close air support operations, working closely with Allied ground units." - given that there was a pause in land operations while the 8th Army prepared to cross the strait of Messina on 3 September (Operation Baytown), this is a bit inaccurate: did the squadron take part in the operations to prepare for the crossing?
  • Reworked, the sentence wasn't correct: the fighting on Sicily continued after their move and the squadron continued ops around Etna. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• "during which its aircraft sunk to vessels" - *cough* *cough* ;)
• "where they were briefly withdrawn" - "they" or "it"? - I think that "it" might work better given that you're talking about the unit as a whole here
• Can more material be added on the unit's operations in the second half of 1944 and early 1945? - this seems a bit light-on
  • Added a bit: probably the extent of my sources here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough - it seems that the squadron performed 'routine' close air support tasks throughout this period which are hard to summarise Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Can you discuss the proportion of the squadron's personnel who were Australian? (the official history might have some point in time figures)
  • Had a trawl through Herington and so far I haven't found anything definate. Barnes mentions something briefly, which I've now added. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• As a comment more dedicated to preparing the article for an ACR, are there any in-air shots of 450 Sqn aircraft which can be used? The current ones are pretty similar to one another. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To answer my own question: from a quick look at the collection database, probably not. I rather like this photo though for what it's worth - it's an interesting shot of how aircraft were maintained in the field! This group photo from what I imagine is the end of the war is also rather good (though I suspect that the caption is wrong and it doesn't show all members of the unit). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks so much for comments, Nick, and Rupert for addressing most of them, as I've been a little preoccupied recently... ;-) I know the first point about describing Article XV isn't actioned yet, happy to take that later today, Rupert, unless you want to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comments, Nick. I've uploaded one of those photos to Commons, and the other already appears to be there: [1] Ian, I'm happy to use them if you are, but it would probably mean that we would have to lose the second crest image. That would probably free up room for the image of the aircraft at Malta: [2]. Ian, if you wouldn't mind adding a bit about the Article XV squadrons, that would be fantastic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Hi Rupert, yes I can add/check everything outstanding. I'm in the Mitchell today and can put Barnes, Brown, Eather and the RAAF Historical Section side by side. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   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. Citations to reliable sources:

   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: