Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 37 Squadron RAAF/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2017 [1].

No. 37 Squadron RAAF

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following up my FAC noms over the past few years for other RAAF transport units, namely Nos. 33, 34 and 36 Squadrons... For 40 years, Nos. 36 and 37 were the RAAF's twin C-130 Hercules squadrons, until the former converted to C-17 Globemasters in 2006 -- No. 37 is expected to continue flying its C-130Js until 2030, and after that who knows? The C-17 may be superior in range and payload, the new C-27 Spartan might be able to get into smaller landing grounds, but no aircraft has spelt "disaster relief" in Australia and the region like the RAAF's Hercs, not to mention their combat support role from Vietnam to the Middle East. The "trashies" (trash haulers) may not have a particularly glamorous job, but unlike their fighter and bomber colleagues they’re “operational” all year round. Tks to everyone involved in the article’s GA and A-Class reviews and, in advance, to all those taking part here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Seems comprehensive and well-written. The usual nitpicks.

  • On my screen, I get a text sandwich between infobox and first image. Could it be moved down a paragraph?
    • Mmm, on my screen that wouldn't make a difference...
  • At the end of the first paragraph of history, it strikes me that most of the state/territory names are not essential. Surely any likely reader will know what state or territory most of them are in?
    • I'd agree with that for all except Maryborough, since I didn't know off the top of my head where it was (but perhaps I'm more geographically challenged than most)...
    • I did say "most". Probably that and Launceston.
      • Sorry my brain skipped "most"... ;-) Trying it out, I think it looks better as all or nothing and since we agree that at least a couple need the qualification I'd prefer to leave as is if that's okay... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Re-establishment, it might be worth mentioning, if the sources will support, that this was pursuant to Menzies' commitment to increase Australian involvement in Vietnam.
    • Sure, happy to mention if one of the existing sources does -- will check.
  • " inactive since 1964" that isn't so long. Maybe "disbanded in 1964".
    • Agree, done.
  • "the Hercules became a familiar sight in the Southern Pacific after being called on for relief following many natural disasters including tsunami in New Guinea, cyclones in the Solomons and Tonga, and fires and floods throughout Australia." I might say "the Hercules became a familiar sight in the Southern Pacific, called on for relief operations following many natural disasters including tsunami in New Guinea, cyclones in the Solomons and Tonga, and fires and floods throughout Australia. " Is tsunami its own plural Down Under?
    • Fair enough re. expression, and I think you might be right about the plural too -- done.
  • "the US-led effort to transport the orphaned children of American servicemen out of Vietnam in April 1975." I might say "evacuate" rather than "transport" and then "from" rather than "out of". "Orphaned" raised an eyebrow but I'm not coming up with a better word.
    • Done.
  • I might link "roundels"
    • Done.
  • "Entombed Warriors" Is that how they are known in Oz? I would think "Terracotta Warriors" or similar more common.
    • I felt I should use the term in the source, which was "Entombed Warriors".
      • Fine.

--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Dan! Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cannot see anything wrong. Looks great to me. Fabulous effort digging up sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source check: All references formatted okay. Spot checks on FN 4, 8, 23, 25, 26, 30, 53, 54, 60, 61 and 68 all okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all that Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think we have a clear consensus to promote here, and between this and the A-Class review there has been plenty of commentary. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/No._37_Squadron_RAAF/archive1&oldid=766220789"