Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vultee Vengeance in Australian service/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2017 [1].

Vultee Vengeance in Australian service

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vultee Vengeance dive bomber is one of the most notorious lemons to have been operated by the Royal Australian Air Force. Ordered when the country faced the threat of Japanese invasion in early 1942, the aircraft didn't arrive in significant numbers until this threat had passed. While five RAAF squadrons were equipped with the type, their performance was mixed and the only significant deployment of Vengeances ended in embarrassment when they were ordered back to Australia after only six weeks to free up space at airstrips for more capable aircraft. Nevertheless, the history of the Vengeance's Australian service provides some interesting insights into the RAAF's successes and failures during World War II, as well as air combat over New Guinea during 1943 and 1944.

I developed this article as part of a series on aircraft operated by the Australian armed forces, with the previous articles covering some of the most successful types. It passed a GA review in April this year, and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in June. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are also met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal

There are 7 great images which are in public domain, have proper description templates, and are also relevant. No issues; good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the image review Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at both GAN and Milhist ACR, and have reviewed all edits made since then. It has been significantly improved by the addition of material relating to the perceived performance of the aircraft and dive-bombing as a tactic in general, and is really comprehensive and an interesting read. Great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

Mention World War II somewhere in the Acquisition section?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The USAAF was also rapidly expanding at this time, which limited the number and types of aircraft available to the country's allies. Suggest "its allies", as "the country" refers to Australia in the previous sentence.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the Australian Government sought assistance from its allies to rapidly expand the RAAF Explain RAAF and link.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While in Washington DC should be "While in Washington, DC," and why was he there anyway?
- To represent Australia on the Pacific War Council and seek aircraft: added Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Government eventually placed an order for 400 Vengeances. Were they acquired under Lend Lease?
- I tried to clarify this one, but no source was clear. Several sources noted that the Vengeances were expensive to purchase (as noted towards the end of the article), so it seems not. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  According to Hasluck (p. 16), the first of 400 Vultee Vengeances were to be delivered in January 1942. So they must have been ordered in 1941. He later says that as a result of Evatt's mission, it was agreed to deliver 34 in 1943 (p. 214) Odgers says that 297 were on order in December 1941. (pp. 268, 484). The Wikipedia article says "a mixture of Lend Lease and diversions from the original British orders". (Shores. Christopher and Smith, Frank. "Diving Vengeance." Air Enthusiast Number Five, November 1977 – February 1978. Bromley, Kent, UK: Pilot Press, 1977. p. 31) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks a lot for this. It looks like the RAAF history I'd relied on here was totally wrong - from Googling the quote from Evatt in the paper, it appears that they got confused with a deal he struck in June 1943! ([2]). I'll do a bit more digging, and amend the text. There appear to be some useful-looking files on the NAA website which hopefully provide a clear cut date. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  After a fair bit of digging (including the fortuitous availability of a book I was unable to consult earlier), I've been able to provide an overview of the procurement history. The Australian Government paid for most of the aircraft, with the remainder being provided under Lend Lease. Interestingly, this purchase replaced an earlier order for an aircraft type often described as being among the worst aircraft of World War II. Also interesting, multiple highly reliable sources (including the RAAF Museum and the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History) stated that the Vengeances were ordered in early 1942, which explains why I didn't think to check the earlier official history volumes which demonstrate otherwise. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  That's great! It makes a lot more sense now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The US Fifth Air Force preferred to use fighter-bombers and light bombers to support ground troops in New Guinea. You might also mention that it had withdrawn its own A-24 Banshee dive bombers
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The commander of the Allied Air Forces in the South West Pacific, Major General George Kenney, requested in late August 1943. Suggest linking South West Pacific Area at this point, and Kenney was a lieutenant general in August 1943.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Air Vice-Marshal George Jones, the chief of the RAAF The Chief of the Air Staff?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
USAAF units equipped with superior types were rapidly arriving in New Guinea during early 1944 The Fifth Air Force had six fighter groups during the war. The 8th, 35th and 49th arrived in New Guinea September-October 1942; the 348th and 475th in June-August 1943; and the 58th in October-December 1943. No new fighter groups arrived in New Guinea in 1944, although the 3rd Air Commando Group arrived in November 1944, and went straight to the Philippines.
- I've added a bit more to clarify this - the main factor was the need to accommodate the USAAF fighter groups at forward airfields. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems very good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning the August 1944 crash? [3] It appears that someone has written a whole book on it, and there's a memorial plaque. [4] It doesn't seem to have been the only crash though [5][6][7] Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not without being about to note how many of the type were lost in crashes, which no source states. The NAA has files for large numbers of crashes for this type (and one appears to list about 189 incidents involving casualties). Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The number of crashes seems large, but I have no point of comparison with other aircraft types. If you're thinking of taking a trip to the National Archives, A649 22/600/31 and 57 probably contain the purchase history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks very much for this review. I think that I've now actioned all of your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Support Looks good. I made one minor change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian

Recusing coord duties, I copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR but quite a bit has changed since then so I've gone through the whole article again rather than just checked diffs, copyediting as I went...

Generally happy with prose and structure, although there might be an argument for putting the last two paras in a separate Assessment section or something similar (not that fussed).
- I was thinking about that as well on the weekend given that section covered two different topics - done. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as comprehensiveness goes, I don't think much is missing -- No. 75 Wing, which controlled No. 23 Squadron for a while, isn't mentioned, but you decide; there are also a couple of anecdotes related to the type's safety record that could be added here if you feel like it, a somewhat amusing one in No. 75 Wing's article, and a more serious one in John Lerew.
- I've added those details on 23 Squadron. Unfortunately none of the sources discusses the Vengeance's overall safety record (beyond some hints that it wasn't very good, as noted above), and the anecdotes would lack context without this. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've nothing to add to Ealdgyth's source review but I think it would help if Nikkimaria ran her eye over the images since she highlighted in her recent review of RAAF area commands that some of the AWM works that have been in WP for a while might benefit from licensing refinements.

Well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review and edits Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No prob, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that relies on the URAA tag should identify when the image was published. Alternatively, the PD-AustraliaGov tag on Commons can be used for images to which it applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikki - I've replaced the tags with the PD-AustraliaGov one as all are official government photos from the Second World War which were transferred to the Australian War Memorial (as the archive for military records of this era) following the war. The work which went into gaining a position on crown copyright in Australia and adding the tag is fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 22 August 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.