Talk:No. 86 Wing RAAF/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 08:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


It's great to see such a comprehensive article on this important RAAF unit. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • I'd suggest using a more easy-to-comprehend term than Operation Oboe Six (which is somewhat obscure)
    • Fair enough, expanded a little.
  • Do we know when No. 86 Wing was disbanded after the end of WW2? (I guess not, and its unit history sheets aren't available online)
    • Don't get me started on this subject... ;-) The reason I only just got round to putting 81 Wing up for GA recently was because I always had a sneaking suspicion that it was disbanded after BCOF, but I'd never found a ref that spelt it out. Then finally a few weeks ago I tried another search and found an APDC timeline entry that said just that and, lo, I could account for the complete lack of any mention of the wing between 1948 and 1960... Now with 86 Wing, yes naturally they haven't digitised its records but I think we might be on reasonably safe ground inferring that it wasn't actually disbanded between its attack and transport formations. The references clearly show the attack wing was still around in December 1945 (when the OC was killed by accident), and its two attack squadrons didn't disband until a month after the first mention of an 86 (Transport) Wing in July 1946. A fair few of the wartime formations were still around in 1946. I've just added more detail to the 78 Wing article after going deeper into its digitised records -- though it lost all its aircraft and most of its staff for two periods after the war (in 1946 and 1948), at no stage does the unit history state that it was actually disbanded on either occasion.
      • Yeah, the RAAF seems to have had a huge number of cadre units all over NSW in 1945-46 while they figured out their future structure and gradually released personnel, so its hard to figure out what the status of units actually was. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest including a link to RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift
    • Done.
  • While not really something that needs to be addressed at GA level, am I right in thinking that No. 86 Wing provided the HQ of the INTERFET Combined Air Wing which was established to support the intervention into East Timor during late 1999? (I think that Warden to Tanager provides this information, but I don't have a copy and it's not clear from the OOB on the AWM's website here)
    • I might be able to get the book at the Mitchell, but will leave till a bit later.
      • (Note that I might be wrong about this!) Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I am wrong: Bob Breen's excellent book Struggling for Self Reliance says that a 'No. 96 Wing' was formed for this task under Group Captain Steward Cameron. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see any barriers to this article passing an A class review, and it should have a good chance at FAC (as a commendably small article to be nominated for this status!). Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks mate, I thought it might have the legs for A-Class myself. It's a little bit shorter than 82 Wing but then it was disbanded for 23 years, while 82 Wing has been in continuous existence -- actually 82's the only RAAF wing in continuous existence since the war, but good luck finding a ref that bothers to mention that little fact... ;-) Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


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) 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    Tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)