Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 82 Wing 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) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. 82 Wing RAAF

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


Another air force formation, but one a good deal larger and more potent than the last one I nominated. RAAF wings present a bit of a challenge for the article writer because they're almost entirely absent from collections of air force unit histories in books or at the Australian War Memorial online, which invariably focus on squadron-sized formations. Given the nature of the equipment it's operated, however, particularly the F-111 swing-wing bomber, No. 82 Wing has a good deal of incidental coverage in disparate sources, which has enabled me to build up what I think is a comprehensive history from World War II to the present day. This was passed as GA over a year ago, since when I've expanded it with additional references. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: looks quite good as usual, Ian. Only a few minor points from me:

  • no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present;
  • I have a suggestion to avoid the image stack in the World War II section. Please review this diff: [1]. Feel free to ignore if you don't agree;
    • Is the stack causing display issues for you, Rupert? It's difficult in my experience to get the ideal placement for images on all shapes and sizes of monitor, particularly when the infobox comes into play, but this seemed to work on the two that I use. The other advantages of the current placement are that the subjects face "inwards" to the text (not an absolute requirement, but desirable), and that the crest seems to be the best infobox image as it represents the formation throughout its entire history and not just one period, as an aircraft shot does. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot checked Notes 1, 17, 21, 25, and 31 and all seemed to support what they are being used to cite and seem free of close paraphrasing;
  • this file might need a source: "File:82WingRAAF.jpg"
  • in the Cold War section, I found the sequence a little confusing. For instance the paragraph beginning "On 1 June 1973, the Officer Commanding..." ends in 1999, while the following paragraph then moves back to 1992. I wonder if this couldn't be reworked a little to improve the flow;
  • I found this last part a little awkward: "As of that year, the F-35 was not expected to enter Australian service until 2018. The RAAF hoped to be able to sell off its Super Hornets "with very low kilometres on the clock" by 2020, but this would depend on delivery of the replacement F-35s." (I can't quite put my finger on it, but it might be around the word "hoped"). Would you mind taking a look and seeing if it could be smoothed a little? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, I think the source (as well as common sense) suggests that the idea of the RAAF being in a position to offload its Super Hornets by 2020 (meaning a full force of 100 F-35s is in service by then) is hopeful at best, so I used the term deliberately, but I'm open to suggestions... ;-) Tks for review as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the issue is with the tense of the word "hoped". For example, the RAAF still "hopes" to be able to do this by 2020, rather than the past tense "hoped"? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I get you. Hope I don't sound stubborn, I'd prefer present tense myself, but I was mindful that the source was from 2011, hence my "As of" statement, which in turn meant I used past tense. I figured also that even if I got source from this year, any present tense would really have to switch to past in four months anyway. Or perhaps I'm being too careful... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That seems fair enough. I'm happy to support the article, as my comments were really only minor nitpicks. In terms of the wording, perhaps this might be smoother: "As of that year, although the F-35 was not expected to enter Australian service until 2018, the RAAF hoped to be able to sell off its Super Hornets "with very low kilometres on the clock" by 2020, but this would depend on delivery of the replacement F-35s." Having said that, though, my suggestion could possibly be considered a bit too convoluted. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice work with this Ian. Here are my comments:

  • "the Borneo Campaign to free the Dutch East Indies from Japanese occupation" - North Borneo (where most of the 9th Division was) was British territory
  • "Following the Japanese surrender in September 1945, No. 82 Wing's Liberators were converted to transports and used to repatriate RAAF personnel from the South West Pacific." - without checking the reference, I thought that the Liberators were also used to transport former POWs?
  • "along with its flying squadrons, its complement included a dedicated air stores park, a salvage-and-repair unit, and a medical clearing station" - can you name these units? (if so, a table with the wing's order of battle circa 1945 would be really interesting)
    • Yes it would and I'd certainly add all that if it were explicit anywhere, however Nelmes (the main WWII source, as you know) only couches it in the general terms I've used. Elsewhere he mentions what I'm sure are the actual units, but not clearly stating they were part of 82 Wing, and certainly nor when they were part of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK fair enough. I just had a quick look through the digitalised unit history reports on the NAA website, and they don't provide those details (though the do provide a monthly update on the number of vehicles on issue to the wing HQ for some reason) Nick-D (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1959, No. 1 (Bomber) Operational Conversion Unit (No. 1 OCU) was established at Amberley under the control of No. 82 Wing. Its role was to convert pilots and navigators to the Canberra, and train them for operations with Nos. 1, 2 and 6 Squadrons." - while OK this is a bit complex; I'd suggest replacing "Nos. 1, 2 and 6 Squadrons" with "the three bomber squadrons" or similar (suggestion only)
  • You should note 2 Squadron's important post-Vietnam photo survey work and the Lear Jets 6 Squadron operated for this purpose for a while
  • I think that you need some material on the delays to the F-111, and what this meant to the wing (eg, it was effectively out of action from 1968 until the Phantoms arrived in 1970, and didn't really become fully combat ready until the mid-1970s)
    • Well, I did say 1 and 6SQNs effectively ceased operations in 1968. I think I recall Lax mentioning the F-111s weren't really combat-ready till the mid-70s, and could add that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should/could RAAF Washington Flying Unit be worked into the article? (suggestion only)
    • Funny, I read that article for the first time a couple of days ago, and was not at all surprised to find out the name of the main editor... ;-) Let me see if we can do it without complicating the F-111 delivery part overmuch... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roles within the wing were demarcated such that No. 1 Squadron was the lead strike unit, while No. 6 Squadron was primarily tasked with flying reconnaissance missions using specially modified RF-111Cs, and providing crew conversion training." - No. 1 Squadron operated the RF-111Cs for a period
  • I think some material on the disastrous F-111 seal/re-seal program is needed given that it affected (I think) members of this wing
  • "As of that year, the F-35 was not expected to enter Australian service until 2018" - this has since been bumped back
  • You might want to note the serious consideration which is apparently being given to buying more Super Hornets
  • I think that the two photos in the WW2 section is excessive, especially given their size; they make the article look a bit crowded. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pity, I felt the second one brought home the hazards of being in a bomber crew, but at the same time I don't want to crowd things too much, nor am I keen to just add more information for the sake of spreading out pictures. If we lose it, I might create an 82WG Commons Category that includes the image (and the others as appropriate), and link to that at the end of the article. Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Support - some points:
    • The abbreviation "RAAF" is used in the lead without full formal introduction, although you previously wrote "No. 82 Wing is the Royal Australian Air Force's strike and reconnaissance wing...", would this work better as "No. 82 Wing is the strike and reconnaissance wing of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)..." (suggestion only)
    • This seems a little awkward to me: "The Liberators of No. 82 Wing played both a tactical and a strategic bombing role in the Borneo Campaign", perhaps something like "The Liberator bombers of No. 82 Wing played both a tactical and a strategic role in the Borneo Campaign..." (suggestion only)
    • This doesn't quite seem right to my ear: "...the Phantom was a significant advance over the Canberra, and highly regarded by its RAAF crews...", would this work better "...the Phantom was a significant advance over the Canberra, and was highly regarded by its RAAF crews..." (suggestion only)
    • Minor nitpick - "Federal government" seems like unnecessary detail here "...performed all F-111 maintenance under a contract to the Federal government..." It might be more economical to just write: "performed all F-111 maintenance under contract..." (suggestion only)
    • Otherwise this is a very good article in my opinion and easily meets the A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many tks mate, I think I pretty well agree with all those suggestions; just a bit pressed for time before we depart for the US but I'm sure I'm find a few minutes at the airport in a short while to respond properly -- Nick, that goes for your remaining unactioned comments as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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._82_Wing_RAAF&oldid=512360746"