Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 17:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review:

  • The toolbox checks out.
  • Susans, Wing Commander M.R. (ed.) (1990).": I assume this is "Wing Commander M.R. Susans", but "Wing Commander" seems out of place. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The image files check out.
  • "the first operator of the Hercules after the United States": doesn't sound quite right to my ear. How about this? "the first to purchase the Hercules from the United States"
    • That could sound as though Australia was the first operator in the world; it was the second, after the US began operating them. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Hercules became synonymous with disaster relief in Australia and the Pacific region, as well as overseas peacekeeping efforts": Also doesn't sound quite right.
    • Suggestion? Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't sound right to me to be "synonymous" with two completely different things. "associated", maybe. - Dank (push to talk)
        • I've just tweaked this to a more literal statement. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Synonymous" was intended to convey that they were well known to the public for their association with disaster relief (something that's in the source -- I'd say that from own observation too but I might be biased) -- anyway I don't mind the more literal or conservative wording in the lead now, we do convey the "public consciousness" thing in the main body at one point, and I might tweak another part to reinforce it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was looking for a replacement with greater cargo capacity and longer range, which would better facilitate the deployment and supply of Australian forces.": It's not clear to me what "which" modifies. How about this? "... longer range to better facilitate ..."
  • "Among the mission's proposals was to acquire Lockheed C-130 Hercules transports to replace the Dakota.": Inverting that to put the subject first would give: "To acquire Lockheed C-130 Hercules transports to replace the Dakota was among the mission's proposals." That's not wrong, but "Acquiring" wouldn't force the reader to backtrack. Your word order is fine, but either substitute "aquiring" or go with: "One mission proposal was to acquire ..."
    • Does "One of the mission's proposals was to acquire Lockheed C-130 Hercules transports to replace the Dakota." work for you? Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "maneuverability": Which variety of English?
    • Heh, it's supposed to be Aust/BritEng, but maybe my new spell-checker's still set on AmEng... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mustering of flight engineer": I think clearer would be "a flight engineer was added to each crew", and do something similar for "loadmaster"
    • I'd prefer that we make clear the idea of a category/mustering. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure most readers won't know that meaning of the word, so if you use it, give them a clue what it means. - Dank (push to talk)
        • I'm tempted to replace this with 'position' or 'role', but it's not quite the same thing given that a mustering also involves the person first having a set of specific qualifications. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I'd prefer the term "aircrew category", which should be clearer than "mustering" and more precise than "position". I've also linked the categories in question, which I probably should've done in the first place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hercules' twenty-tonne freight capacity—compared to three-and-a-half tonnes in a Dakota—and its various systems for delivering cargo, necessitated a specialist crew member to make weight-and-balance calculations and oversee loading and despatch." Your call, but I think this would be easier to parse: A specialist crew member was needed to make weight-and-balance calculations and oversee loading and despatch for the Hercules' twenty-tonne freight capacity (compared to three-and-a-half tonnes in a Dakota) and for its various systems for delivering cargo. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This purchase did not go ahead, with the Government ordering": Instead, the government ordered
  • "their newly converted Australian pilots": I'm not sure what "converted" means. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought I'd used "converted" earlier but it was "trained", so gone with that. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in one C-130A remaining grounded for almost a year": grounding one C-130A for almost a year.
  • "at the commencement of the Konfrontasi between Indonesia and Malaysia": I'd go with "at the commencement of the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation"; it saves you having to explain Konfrontasi.
  • "and No. 37 Squadron's overseas and strategic": I prefer "and No. 37 Squadron's was overseas and strategic"
    • Tweaked -- "while" sounded better than "and" to me, and the duties were parallel so does that work just as well? Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forty-two per cent of Hercules flying hours was in support of Australian Army operations.": "were devoted to" (or "supported", but "support" is used a lot in this paragraph).
  • "one of No. 37 Squadron's Hercules was the first Australian strategic transport aircraft to land at Vung Tau. In May 1967, three Hercules of No. 37 Squadron supported": You can avoid both the odd-sounding plural and the repetition with "a No. 37 Squadron Hercules was the first Australian strategic transport aircraft to land at Vung Tau, and three from that squadron supported ... in May 1967"
    • Killed first part -- see edit summary. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following the end of the Vietnam War": at the end of the Vietnam War (since you're talking about the evacuations)
    • Agree, especially since we use "following" three times that para -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well as participating in military exercises and overseas peacekeeping commitments, the Hercules became well known in the Southern Pacific after being called on for relief following many natural disasters": My preference would be to omit the introductory phrase, unless the peacekeeping commitments deserve more specific mention.
    • Let me think about this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just split this into two sentences; in the longer run it could be expanded into a para on the post-Vietnam service of these aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having remained in service for twenty years and clocked up 147,000 accident-free flying hours": Technically parallel, it will seem nonparallel to many. "After clocking up 147,000 accident-free flying hours over the course of twenty years"
  • "cargoes included kangaroos and sheep to Malaysia": I was going to say "bound for Malaysia", but that might be unintentionally humorous if "bound" sounds like something kangaroos like to do. What were the kangaroos for?
    • All Australian aircraft carry kangaroos - haven't you seen a Qantas plane? I'll let Ian check the source, but I'm pretty sure it would have been some kind of diplomatic gift. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Fraid the source doesn't extrapolate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what a "tanker/transport" is.
  • "1987 Fijian coups d'état": Ugh, that's the actual article title, but note that the first sentence of the article says "1987 Fijian coups" instead. Go with that.
  • "from where it picked up": where it picked up
  • "In May 2012 the Government announced as part of the 2012–13 Budget": "budget". "Government" is a harder call; I recommended lowercasing above because the word followed shortly after "Australian Government"; here, I'd probably go with "Australian Government".
    • Agree -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The common, and defacto formal, name for the national government is the 'Australian Government' (it used to be normally called the 'Commonwealth Government', but this changed about 15 years ago when the PM decided that he preferred 'Australian Government'). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Nick, that was my sense but I didn't know why. Btw, although "US Government" is a phrase thrown around by a lot of people, including people in the US Government :), careful writers will say "the administration", "the state department", etc., except in specific contexts: US government workers, the US Government Printing Office, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were subsequently retired on 30 November that year": were retired on 30 November that year
    • Agree -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tks mate, a lot of good suggestions there -- will consider the others later, and of course Nick might have an opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comments and changes all work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks also from me for the review Dank. The only outstanding issue seems to be what the kangaroos were doing on the aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Crowing alert: even though Nick and I already had a lot of stored knowledge on this topic, I think that considering we effectively whipped up the article in a matter of days, it's pretty damn good -- but considerably better having had a going-over from Dan... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have no problem with finding more to fix at GAN than I would for the same article at FAC, that's the nature of the beast, I think. It's a very good article for a few days work. My question about the kangaroos mainly comes from the phrase "kangaroos and sheep" ... the sheep probably weren't a ceremonial gift, unless they were very special sheep, so the phrase suggests that the kangaroos were for some mysterious mundane purpose. For the record, I'll leave "This purchase did not go ahead, the government instead ordering" alone because I see it a lot from Aussie writers, but the first part seems redundant and nonstandard to me if you just say "but the government did X instead" (and the WP:PLUSING doesn't generally survive FAC, anyway). - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. BritEng seems to be "manoeuvrability". - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tks for that, will do. Heh, sorry, I misunderstood you earlier, didn't pick up that "Instead the government ordered..." was intended to replace the whole bit. I think you're right about Australian writers -- I know the first part is a bit redundant but somehow it sounds better to me... Anyway not that fussed if you or Nick want to alter to your phrasing. Tks again for a very helpful review, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise:
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_in_Australian_service/GA1&oldid=550807926"