Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service

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. Anotherclown (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk)

Although Nick and I have a long history of editing and reviewing each other's articles, this is the first time we've actively collaborated. The idea developed quite spontaneously as I was expanding No. 86 Wing (long-time operator of the C-130) and Nick was working on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service, which I reviewed at GAN. It occurred to us that a) there was an article on the C-130s' service crying out to be written and b) we were just the blokes to write it, the subject and format being fresh in our minds! Anyway, this is the story of the RAAF's greatest workhorse, with a 50-year-plus history through four different models -- enjoy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but not much stood out for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

"as of March 2013 the Australian aircraft were using version 6.1 of the software, and the RAAF was participating in the development of version 7.0": Unless the software is famous for some reason, we probably don't need to know the version number.
- Fair point: I've just made this less specific. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, except that I may have missed some things in the extensive green diffs (see the changes made since I reviewed this for GAN ... I had to click on the triangle symbol at the bottom to get the "improved diffs"). These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor points:

"The RAAF's first strategic airlifter, the Hercules have frequently been used to deliver disaster relief in Australia and the Pacific region, as well as to support military deployments overseas. " - I'm not sure it should be changing from singular to plural in the sentence.
- I agree, well spotted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the article there are various numbers expressed words which I think the MOS would have as digits (24 etc.)
- Will review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Hercules represented a quantum leap over the C-47 in payload, range, speed and manoeuvrability" - quantum leap felt unencylopaedic to me.
- It may be somewhat colloquial but elsewhere the source uses the term "quantum advance" to describe a similar leap forward in fighter technology... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "represented a significant improvement over the C-47 in terms of payload..."? That would the capture the meaning of the phrase, but avoid the colloquialism and the problem of the phrase implying time as well as absolute improvement. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, considered "significant improvement" but don't think that captures the advance as expressed in the source, which describes it as jumping three generations of capability in one bound -- don't want to seem stubborn but I still think the current wording does the job without being too colloquial for an encyclopedia (as I say, "quantum advance wasn't too colloquial for the source, which is an official history). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" a large number of aeromedical evacuation flights out of Vietnam to transfer wounded or sick personnel to Australia, via Butterworth, for further treatment. " - "aeromedical" felt redundant (unless I've misunderstood it!) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I can see that, might leave to see if Nick has an opinion. Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trimming that would be sensible - the rest of the para notes that the planes were specially configured and staffed for these flights, so the word is essentially surplus. Nick-D (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2013 (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.