Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF
- 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 by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF edit
No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Probably the dullest unit name the RAAF could think of but its story belies it. The oldest continually operating formation in RAAF history, 1AD's heyday was before World War II, when it was not only responsible for aircraft maintenance but also for organising several pioneering survey flights in Australia and overseas. Its testing program during the war prefigured the work done by the RAAF's current test-flying facility, ARDU. After the war 1AD got the RAAF's first jets ready for service, before losing first its airframe and then its engine maintenance responsibilities in the 1960s, and seeing out its days supporting mainly ground equipment. This has been GA for a while but I've recently expanded it and while I don't know if I'll ever get round to taking it to FAC, I think it's worthy of A-Class -- tks for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support
Looks pretty good. One typo: "reconnoitered" should be "reconnoitred" Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Image review
Four images, all from AWM and all copyright expired. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support - this looks very good to me, only some minor points:
- No dabs, external links check out, no citation errors, no duplicate links, image captions look fine to me (no action req'd)
- "...near a railway station eight kilometres inland from Point Cook..." - you might consider using the {{convert}} template here (suggestion only)
- Quite right -- I usually do this but was a bit lazy here... ;-)
- "...aircraft fitters and riggers" - are there any suitable articles we might be able to wikilink here to explain of our readers what fitters and riggers do perhaps? (suggestion only)
- No articles for aircraft fitters and riggers per se but I guess it does no harm to link to fitter (occupation) and rigger (industry)...
- "...Hawker Hurricanes" - I'm a bit curious about this entry, didn't the RAAF only operate one in Australia (the rest being in Europe)? I believe it was based at Laverton for a bit so I guess No. 1 AD would have probably been involved in its maintenance etc. but does a single aircraft warrant mention? If its in the sources I guess keep it (it probably works to indicate the range of aircraft the unit maintained I concede); however, it stood out to me as potentially implying that a more significant qty were in service and therefore *might* mislead some readers. (this is really very minor and probably only exists as an issue in my mind)
- Well spotted, I haven't checked but from memory you may well be right -- the source in fact uses singular for all types (perhaps to hedge as well!) so I've done the same.
- "... for the Air Force and other sections of defence..." should "defence" here be capitalized as a proper noun?
- Heh, I was in two minds and decided to leave it but happy to alter.
- "By now the depot's functions had largely..." perhaps "by then" might work better? (suggestion only). Anotherclown (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, no prob.
- Tks for reviewing AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, those changes all look good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the link to the Imperial Gift is insufficient, some sort of brief explanation of what it was is needed.
- Quite agree, done.
- I suggest putting a comma after "ground equipment" in the post-war section.
- Re-worded with a little more detail.
- Suggest "Ground Equipment Maintenance Squadron
s"- Well spotted, tks.
That's it from me, looking very good.
- The discussion above 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.