Talk:Northern Command (RAAF)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.
- No DABs, external links OK.
- Images appropriately licensed.
- since September 1942 but had lately comma after date.
- Will do.
- Not much info on No. 74 Wing's activities or even its composition. Should be about the same as the coverage given to the other units.
- I agree it should but unfortunately I've found no information at all on its composition in the official history (which in fact doesn't even mention it!) or in other government sources, or in books or in the Trove newspaper resource.
- That's just strange. Can you confirm that it did exist and isn't a typo for some other wing?
- It is the odd one out of the RAAF's wartime wings -- all the others seem to have something of their composition and actions mentioned in the official history and/or other sources, but I've no doubt it existed; we have refs in the article to a government list of operational headquarters and the Sydney Morning Herald, plus the unit history is in the National Archives but unfortunately hasn't been digitised. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's just strange. Can you confirm that it did exist and isn't a typo for some other wing?
- I agree it should but unfortunately I've found no information at all on its composition in the official history (which in fact doesn't even mention it!) or in other government sources, or in books or in the Trove newspaper resource.
- I'm a little confused by the map since it doesn't mention Northern Command at all, nor No. 9 Group. What's the relationship between Northern Area as shown on the map and Northern Command since Northern Area was rejected as a name by RAAF HQ? Or is the date on the map wrong?
- First off, No. 9 Group would not appear in a map of area commands as it was (ostensibly) a mobile formation. I actually had a helluva time finding any map of Northern Command, which is partly why it took so long to get this article together. My map is not based on a contemporary one but on one that appears in a fairly recent book (focussing on the Navy, not the Air Force even) and that's the terminology and date they give. I suspect that either the map comes from a proposal by Bostock in 1944 when he wanted to call it Northern Area, or else it's simply a typo, but I was loathe to change it even though I agree it's a bit misleading (but not too bad since "Area" was the proposed name and the eventual name). If the map was on a website I'd just ask them if they could change it but I don't think anyone's going to reprint a book for me on account of this... ;-) Happy to take suggestions -- I suppose I could add something to the caption along the lines of "Northern Area was the name proposed by Bostock but Northern Command was chosen and employed from April 1944 until December 1945" or some such...
- I would clarify in the caption that the Northern Area on the map is the same as the subject of the article. I'll confess that I'm not that familiar with the situation in New Guinea late in the war, but the boundaries there seem rather bizarre.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll have a go at the caption and let you see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would clarify in the caption that the Northern Area on the map is the same as the subject of the article. I'll confess that I'm not that familiar with the situation in New Guinea late in the war, but the boundaries there seem rather bizarre.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- First off, No. 9 Group would not appear in a map of area commands as it was (ostensibly) a mobile formation. I actually had a helluva time finding any map of Northern Command, which is partly why it took so long to get this article together. My map is not based on a contemporary one but on one that appears in a fairly recent book (focussing on the Navy, not the Air Force even) and that's the terminology and date they give. I suspect that either the map comes from a proposal by Bostock in 1944 when he wanted to call it Northern Area, or else it's simply a typo, but I was loathe to change it even though I agree it's a bit misleading (but not too bad since "Area" was the proposed name and the eventual name). If the map was on a website I'd just ask them if they could change it but I don't think anyone's going to reprint a book for me on account of this... ;-) Happy to take suggestions -- I suppose I could add something to the caption along the lines of "Northern Area was the name proposed by Bostock but Northern Command was chosen and employed from April 1944 until December 1945" or some such...
- The sentences in the very last paragraph are very short and a couple could profitably be consolidated, IMO.
- They are a bit staccato -- merged the first two.
--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Tks as always, Sturm. FWIW, when I nominated this I immediately looked around for one of yours to review but surprisingly found none. I'll try again next time as I haven't reviewed a ship article for a while... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Royal Sovereign's the only one I've got on deck; I'm a little burnt out after the flood last month.
- Don't blame you! I'll have a look for that one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Royal Sovereign's the only one I've got on deck; I'm a little burnt out after the flood last month.