Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service/archive1

< Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Nick-D in topic Addressed comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago41 comments3 people in discussion
  • Nineteen of the RAAF's fleet of 24 C-130s - per WP:ORDINAL, "comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures"
  • Air Officer Commanding Home Command - per SEAOFBLUE this should be avoided if possible.
    • De-linked Air Officer Commanding
  • Short PD 16/1 - Is this model worth a redlink?
    • Probably not: this seems to have only ever been a 'paper' design and the work cited here is the only reference I've been able to find on its existence, so it's unlikely to be notable. I imagine that it was a design developed specifically for the RAAF requirement, or which Short Brothers were hoping that the RAAF might fund. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • as the other two types did not meet some of the most important elements of the requirement. - such as?
    • From memory, the source doesn't specify. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • ad hoc - italics?
  • 14.7-million-pound contract - Above you give dollars and pounds. Why just pounds here?
    • The source didn't provide a conversion here, and as an economist I'm rather wary of doing my own conversions for things like this (it's an area where non-economists think its really easy, but it isn't). Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • for a cost of $86 million - this one's missing the pounds / failing to note that Australia converted to the dollar.
    • As above. Australia had long-since converted to the dollar by this point. I've added an $A to make it a bit clearer. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • doppler navigation systems - worth linking?
  • Worth linking?
  • Project Peacemate - notable?
    • Probably not: it was a rather arcane and secretive project, and it's unlikely anyone would be able to write a coherent article on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The Australian Government ordered - If you just have "the Government" above, why use the Australian Government here?
    • It's the start of a new para, and a new topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • At the time the order for the twelve C-130Js was placed, the Government also took out options for a further 27 Super Hercules, - WP:ORDINAL again
  • The Hercules were also used to transport back to Australia the bodies of servicemen killed in Vietnam. - "back to Australia" looks to be in a wonky place.
  • seven C-130s and about 100 air and ground crew - WP:ORDINAL
  • Communist forces - Someone unfamiliar with the Vietnam war may not realise you mean N. Vietnam here.
  • Suggest splitting the first few paragraphs of Vietname era to a new section (Pre-Vietnam era?)
    • Good idea: done (Ian, does the heading look OK?) Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Standardise use of   between No. and the squadron number/task force number
    • I'll leave this to Ian as he knows what he's doing here Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks for these comments - I have to own up to most of the issues being in sections of the article I wrote! Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Tks Crisco for comments and Nick for actions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Even easier, aerial refueling is a duplicate link and can be removed easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • True, it was just suggested in an earlier review that "tanker" should be linked for the uninitiated... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • soldiers were subsequently embarked - or should it be soldiers subsequently embarked
  • Consider standardising linking of political bodies (you link some countries, i.e. East Timor, but don't link several states and major cities).
    • In general I tend to link all city names, and states when used in isolation (i.e. "flew to Townsville, Queensland" and "flew to Queensland"). I don't think countries need to be linked unless they're either obsolete (e.g. East Germany) or newish political entities (so East Timor seems fair enough). Anyway, we'll check the article over for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Reviewed, think the links are consistent with the above-mentioned std now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • deep maintenance - anything to link to (so we can see how it's different than regular maintenance)?
    • Don't remember there being something to link to but I might be able to add some sort of brief description. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Iraq War and recent operations - the paragraph immediately preceding this one has some information about Operation Slipper (i.e. the Iraq War). Should it be reorganised?
    • Think that makes sense: Op Slipper sentence can certainly move to the next section, Bali Bombing one as well probably. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • An American contractor travelling on an Australian C-130 in Iraq was killed on 27 June 2004 when the aircraft was struck by gunfire shortly after it took off from Baghdad. - Is this the first combat fatality in an Australian Hercules? You don't seem to mention any earlier ones, or crashes
    • Can't be sure this was the first fatality on an Australian Herc (unless one of Nick's sources has that) but definitely been no crashes. I thought we covered that by saying "accident-free flying hours" or words to that effect when each model was retired but perhaps we need to revisit that. I'm not sure if we have a recent source highlighting that no Herc of any model has had an accident, but we can check... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • No source Ian or I could find identifies any of the RAAF's C-130s as having suffered a significant accident (and I went looking for this). Ian and I discussed this during the article's development, and we also couldn't find anything which remarks specifically on the type's apparently excellent safety record in Australian service, so not much more can be said. No source stated that the death in 2004 was the first on the type - it seems likely that some soldiers being evacuated from Vietnam would have passed away in-flight given the types of aeromedical evacuation missions which were being conducted, but again no source confirms this. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Australian Government - I think this should be Australian government, as it's not a proper name, but rather a generic noun
    • Not sure about this one, when we say "Australian Government" we usually mean the specific Federal one I think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • The "Australian Government" is the common name for the national government these days. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Comprehensiveness: Number of crashes, accidents, incidents, and/or combat losses? Fatalities?
    • Per earlier response -- they actually have a remarkable safety record, we'll just see if we've overlooked any recent source that spells it out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Duplicate links: aerial refueling, Operation Slipper
    • See response above re. first, second we can definitely tweak. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Otherwise that looks to be it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_in_Australian_service/archive1&oldid=563381503"