Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 79 Squadron RAAF

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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No. 79 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

• Featured article candidates/No. 79 Squadron RAAF/archive1

This article on a Royal Australian Air Force squadron with a fairly convoluted history was assessed as being a GA in January. Since then I have further expanded it, and think that it may now meet the A class criteria. Please note that there isn't any dedicated book on the history of this unit (other than a self-published account of its World War II service), so the article is sourced from a number of references - despite this, I think that the account here is comprehensive. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Explain or link Permanent Air Force and Air Force Reserve for readers unfamiliar with the RAAF.
  • Done
• Did the strength of the squadron in Thailand ever exceed 8?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, it was a detachment of the RAAF force in Malaysia and aircraft were rotated between the two countries - I've clarified this in the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical review

• No dab links.
• External link to NAA gives a warning but works fine from article.
• Fixed a couple of alt text issues -- no further action req'd. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: Not much as it looks quite good to me:
  • the images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the World War II section, "reequipped". Should this be "re-equipped"? The Macquarie Dictionary I have on my desk supports the latter;
  • in the Cold War section, "reestablished". Should this be "re-established"? The Macquarie Dictionary supports the latter;
  • in the Cold War section, "reequipped". Should this be "re-equipped"? As above;
  • in the Current status section, "reestablished". As above. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm with you, Rupert -- think I changed them in my ce but will go back and check all occurrences... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi, Ian, yes I believe you have gotten them all. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Nice work as usual, Nick; made my usual minor copyedit but generally prose, structure, detail, images, and referencing look sound; couple of minor things:

• The squadron has been formed on four occasions since it was first established in 1943... --"First established" (or "first formed") always sounds a tautology to me (like "new initiative"). How about The squadron has been reformed on three occasions since it was established in 1943...?
  • Changed to "The squadron has been formed on four occasions since 1943" Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think it needs to be clearer that the 8 Sabres from 77SQN were used for the reformed 79SQN at Ubon (via Singapore); at the moment the uninitiated can assume a connection but it's not explicit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Tweaked to "This force was designated No. 79 Squadron while at Tengah Air Base in Singapore on 29 May". Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Those work for me, mate -- when can we expect 75SQN at GAR/ACR...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Not long - it's on my to-do list (I just need to remember to print a copy of it off and fix up grammatical problems). Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• There was very little to fix. A few judgment calls I didn't make: - Dank (push to talk)
• "initial jet aircraft training to new RAAF pilots": I think I'd prefer the word you use in the last section, "introductory", to "initial", because "initial" can be misinterpreted as redundant to "jet aircraft training to new RAAF pilots".
  • Done
• "as a result of wounds": That's not wrong, but I recommend "from wounds", and there's a little more to this than simply reducing 4 words to 1; there's something of a trend in formal English to replace some phrases that are synonyms of "because" with prepositions.
  • Done (the few words per sentence the better in my view!).
• "In exchange" usually feels wry and metaphorical to me when used to describe trading casualties; it's not wrong, but it's just a little more "clever" than the context supports, I think.
  • Fair enough; I've replaced this with a 'however'
• "later further improved": I think I prefer "later improved".
  • I think that the current wording is OK - the issue is that living conditions were improved from a low standard and then later made even better.
• "The squadron was equipped with 12 Mirage III fighters that had previously been operated by No. 3 Squadron, and a single DHC-4 Caribou transport." There are exceptions, but see WP:MHCL#series; more often than not, a sentence is a little easier to read if you put the complex element in the series last: *"The squadron was equipped with a single DHC-4 Caribou transport and 12 Mirage III fighters that had previously been operated by No. 3 Squadron."
  • Given that the squadron was formed to operate the Mirages and the Caribou was assigned to it for administrative-type reasons, it seems best to lead with the Mirages.
• "South East Asia": I'm not sure; check the hyphenation on this. (It's "Southeast Asia" in AmEng.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed to Southeast Asia (which is what the Australian official history uses, so is presumably common usage here as well). Thanks a lot for the comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I have a small problem with The squadron was reformed... due to the ambiguity of "reform" which might mean "form again", or perhaps "remake in a more suitable form, to remedy previous defects". Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good call; someone might want to check Macquarie's for "re-formed", but rewording would be safe. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • the Macquarie dictionary supports "re-formed" here. I have made the edit, but if any one feels strongly it could probably just be reworded. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that Rumiton, Dank and Rupert. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.