Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 34 Squadron RAAF/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

No. 34 Squadron RAAF edit

Featured article candidates/No. 34 Squadron RAAF/archive1

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following my earlier noms for Nos. 33 and 36 Squadrons, yet another RAAF transport unit formed in WWII and still flying today. This is Australia's specialist VIP carrier or, as one Air Force historian succinctly put it, "the private airline of the nation's political leaders". I resisted improving this one for a while as the more "operational" squadrons always seemed more interesting, but in the end I got happily caught up in the convoluted history and inside dope of this unit, and hope you do too... ;-) Tks to Nick-D for some additional information from his library, all who took part in the article's GAN and MilHist ACR, and in advance to everyone commenting here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. One suggestion: replace "biannually" (too easy to confuse with "biennially") with "semi-annually" (not hyphenated in AmEng, btw), or revert to "twice a year". - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about "twice annually"? If not I think I'll go back to the "twice a year" used in the source and if anyone gets me for not paraphrasing I'll refer 'em to you... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, "twice annually" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Link squadron in the lede.
- Okay.
The squadron supported the invasion of Borneo, and became the first Allied aircraft to land at Labuan There's something wrong with this sentence.
- God, I'll say there is -- tks!
Photos are appropriately licensed.
No DABs or duplicate links.
Curiously, the external link checker reported none such.
Use a endash for page ranges in Morel.
- Well spotted.
Otherwise nicely done. Glad to see unit strengths reported at various times.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: when/where was File:RAAF_Vickers_Viscount_(AWM_128878).jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No info on that at the Australian War Memorial source file. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Mystere or Mystère? --John (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably think the latter but three sources confirm the former, at least as far as the RAAF was concerned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and surprising. Thank you. --John (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 June it became the first operational RAAF squadron to have members of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force in its ranks, a contingent made up of an officer and twenty airwomen.[3] I assume we are talking about ground support, and not combat roles for the women? I think this should be made explicit, if the source supports it. --John (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Source doesn't spell out the work the WAAAF did at 34Sqn, but the RAAF never employed any in combat roles to my knowledge.
- While I'm here, re. this edit, I prefer the previous formatting to reduce the blue. It's a style I try to apply consistently in all the articles I work on and I'm not aware of it violating any MOS policy... BTW, tks for going through the article, John, looking fwd to any further comments/queries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re women's roles, it struck me that that was a possible misreading of the text some might make. I wonder if there is a way to avoid this? Re piped links, I've got into the habit of removing links like Wyndham, Western Australia, and changing them to Wyndham, Western Australia which I think is better and clearer in the spirit of WP:OVERLINK. Your Wyndham, Western Australia is neither recommended nor deprecated by MoS and I appreciate it is your aesthetic preference. I would still weakly prefer the simpler version, on the basis that it makes it easier for editors (fewer characters). I am surprised there is no specific guidance on this matter. Nevertheless I would not oppose the article's promotion over such a minor matter. --John (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well since it won't strain the friendship I might restore it... ;-) Re. the WAAAF bit, although the main ref is no help, I could add/source a general statement such as "The WAAF had been formed in March 1941 to free male staff for overseas postings, and by the end of the war comprised 31% of RAAF ground crew" or some such, if you think it adds useful context without undue weight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was more the non-combat status I was thinking of; without clarification it is possible some readers might think this was a fighting force, which would be misleading. --John (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Here is a primary source that makes the point clear, if that's any use. --John (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fine, if it's the non-combat nature of their duties you'd like to see made clear then I can alter the wording above and probably cite it to a source already employed in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That'd be great. --John (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @John: added/tweaked along the lines discussed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It looks great. --John (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks John! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

I see two different Stephens short cites (FNs 18 and 27), but only one Stephens in References. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, tks -- added a snippet of info per John's cmt above but neglected to add the book ref... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.