Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Australian Air Corps

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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Australian Air Corps

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Featured article candidates/Australian Air Corps/archive1

Allow me to present a neglected formation of the Australian military (so neglected it hasn't even had an article on WP till recently)... The Australian Flying Corps of World War I and the Royal Australian Air Force formed in 1921 are quite well known but between the disbandment of one and the establishment of the other, Australia's military air personnel needed a home, and that was provided by the short-lived AAC. It turned out to be a pretty successful venture though -- rather than simply remain in a holding pattern, its personnel undertook some pioneering flights, and laid the foundations of a permanent air force. Not a long article but I think comprehensive given the subject’s brief existence. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: tidy little article, Ian. (Hoping that you might one day fix the hack job I did on the AFC article...) I have the following review comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ext links work, there are no dab links and no duplicate links (no action required)
all images have alt text (no action required)
the article is adequately referenced and uses a consistent referencing style (no action required)
"Two biplanes in a field surrounded by a crown"--> "Two biplanes in a field surrounded by a crowd"?
- Oops...
suggest cropping the border from "File:Cadets inspecting the planes of Lieutenant Colonel R. Williams and Major L.J. Wackett in July 1920, Duntroon, Canberra (6173962056).jpg"
- Can do, though I have to admit a fondness for the antique picture-postcard look of the image as is... ;-)
suggest maybe splitting this sentence: "The Australian Air Force was formed on 31 March, inheriting Point Cook and most of its initial personnel and equipment from the AAC (the "Royal" prefix was added to "Australian Air Force" that August)"
- Okay.
some ranks are hyphenated, and some aren't, for instance "Lieutenant Colonel" but "Major-General" and "Rear-Admiral"
- Damn, I went through and thought I made consistent throughout but guess I only caught some -- will do.
if there was an iconic image, I'd suggest adding it to the infobox
- Yes, this is probably the first article I've created or heavily expanded that doesn't have an ibox image, but I haven't seen what I'd consider an iconic image. Of course as a temporary organisation it not only had no distinct uniform but presumably no crest or ensign either -- but if something shows up I'll put it in.
"Warrant officers and sergeants of the AAC, including Arthur Murphy": as the caption appears before the first mention in text, I suggest potentially adding a link to the caption or explaining who Murphy was here
- Yes, a link'd make sense.
- Tks for review and support Rupert -- and AFC is no hack job, I've always been impressed with it, and took account of the sections/headers you'd used when I was structuring the AAC article. When/if I have more time I'd be happy to collaborate on getting it to ACR/FAC, though I expect the bulk of the finished product would still be what's already there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Ian, kind of you to say so. Yes, I'd be keen to work with you on the AFC article when you are ready. I would need to order a few books, though, so if you let me know a few weeks in advance, I can order them through the work library. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very well developed article on an interesting topic. I'd like to offer the following comments and suggestions:

"Raised in January 1920, the AAC was commanded by Major William Anderson, a former AFC pilot; many of the AAC's members were from the AFC and would go on to join the RAAF. " - I think that there's a bit too much going on in this sentence. I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences (perhaps a second sentence on the personnel, also noting the size of the force?)
- Well I felt the semicolon worked to connect ex-AFC pilot Anderson with the other personnel who were from the AFC... I'd prefer to leave out size of force as I don't think we have a final count of that, especially not the grand total of officers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've had a go at splitting the sentence; I think that the topics are sufficiently different for this to work, but please revert me if you disagree. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No that's fine by me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest explaining why the AFC was disbanded - presumably this was part of the disbandment of the AIF?
- Oddly enough it's very difficult to find even an exact date for the AFC's disbandment -- that's why based on my research I felt I could only say that its' "remnants" were dissolved in December 1919, rather than the corps as a distinct entity -- let alone the official reason for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. The AIF wasn't officially disbanded until 1921, which is surprising enough! Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was the role of the AAC envisioned as maintaining only the AFC's physical assets, or was it also intended to maintain the knowledge and experience gained in the war?
- This too is a bit problematic -- Stephens in his one-volume history of the RAAF and Molenkin in Fire in the Sky suggest it, but Legge as quoted in Coulthard-Clark (who offers the most detailed account of the AAC) apparently never mentioned it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have managed to work it in as part of the AAC's legacy, thanks to how it's couched in the Pathfinder article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second para of the 'Establishment and control' section is a little bit unclear on what the ultimate intentions for the air service were when the AAC was established. Had it been decided at this time to follow the UK in establishing an independent air force, or was this still under consideration? (which the text currently implies was the case)
- Heh, I used language like "a [or "any"] permanent air force" because there was so much to-ing and fro-ing that the whole thing could've been scuppered almost up until it actually happened. That aside, I think we can say that an independent air force was considered the way to go by January 1919, and will add a sentence or two around that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Were there a large number of applications from AFC personnel to join the AAC? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Coulthard-Clark doesn't make that explicit, although the implication is that they had enough to fill their establishment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed: nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:P07016.001ImperialGiftSE5.jpg: when/where was this first published?
File:Cadets_inspecting_the_planes_of_Lieutenant_Colonel_R._Williams_and_Major_L.J._Wackett_in_July_1920,_Duntroon,_Canberra_(6173962056).jpg: any more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nikki, have to admit that in both cases I just grabbed the image from Commons without altering the licensing. I think the first should really be PD-AustraliaGov, and have updated accordingly. Perhaps the second should be as well as it's held by the National Library of Australia? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The copyright status for the second image is 'out of copyright' on the NLA's catalogue [[1]] so PD-Australia would also be appropriate given it doesn't seem to have been an official government photo, but rather one donated to the NLA. It's a great photo! It looks to be taken from the modern lake bed of Lake Burley Griffin. Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tks Nick -- yes, for Australia, PD-Australia is fine because the image was taken before 1955, but we also need it to be tagged PD worldwide and whereas a while back we would've added PD-1996 for pre-1946 images (i.e. out of copyright in the home country more than 50 years before 1996), PD-1996 depends on knowing the date it was first published as opposed to simply the creation date, and publishing date is something we rarely know for sure. So we've started using PD-AustraliaGov where appropriate as it applies worldwide. Is that a fair rendition of the rationale, Nikki...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes - see the Cornell chart for info on the complexity around why publication date matters. Depending on the circumstances of donation, copyright may or may not have been transferred at the same time, and that would dictate whether AustraliaGov is usable here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks to Nick for clarifying the aspect of the photo. I was trying to work that out myself. I thought something similar, but wasn't sure as its been a long time since I lived in Canberra and I have a poor memory of the place outside of the area between Patterson Hall and the Gun Gates. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hi Nikki, I checked online newspaper archives to see if any contemporary reports of the visit included the picture (thereby establishing a publishing date for purposes of PD-1996) but haven't found any, so I'd be happy to take advice on how we best we license the image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        What is the earliest publication date we can confirm, and what is known about authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        According to this, the image was published in a book on Duntroon in 2001. The author is Frank Boland, who according to biographical data worked as an engineer at Duntroon and may have been the official cinimatographer for the opening of Parliament House, Canberra -- I don't know whether that indicates he was working in an official capacity when he took the image in question. He died in 1955, if that helps from a worldwide permissions perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        If we can confirm he was the official cinematographer, that should make it AustraliaGov. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Can't find anything further on that. As he was employed at the time of the image by Duntroon, a government/military institution, would that satisfy PD-AustraliaGov? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, think that should be good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Tks Nikki, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed

I reviewed this article for GA, and assessing the changes made since then am satisfied that it meets A-class criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.