Talk:No. 1 Long Range Flight RAAF/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this one was just sticking around waiting for me to claim it for review; will have a read from top to bottom and post comments over next few days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

No dab links
No external link issues

Prose/referencing/coverage/structure/images review

Little to add following my copyedit, and nothing I came across in that was a particularly major issue (except Americanising "refuelling" of course!) so feel free to discuss if you disagree with anything.
My one outstanding question is re. Squadron Leader Peter Raw became the unit's initial commander on 23 February, but was replaced by Wing Commander Derek R. Cuming in May. -- It seems likely to me that Raw was always supposed to be in temporary command until someone more senior came on board, but the wording could be read as suggesting that perhaps Raw was thought not up to it and so Cuming took over -- how does Units actually put it, in the prose and in the CO list (if present)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - it says that Raw held command until Cuming "took over"; I've tweaked the wording accordingly Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure we need "the more senior" since we've mentioned their respective ranks in the same breath, but apart from looks fine now. Happy to pass this great little article -- what in particular inspired you to do it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that 'the more senior' helps to explain why Cuming took over but Raw remained with the unit, especially for people who aren't familiar with military ranks. As for why I decided to do so much work on the article: procrastination over a university essay! Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mmm, not sure about the argument for the senior bit because all sorts of basic things in MilHist articles might need to be explained to the uninitiated, but I won't hold up things on that account. As to how you came to write it, well three hearty cheers for procrastination! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]