Talk:David Evans (RAAF officer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleDavid Evans (RAAF officer) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed
July 25, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 23, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Page Naming and Redirecting[edit]

I have created this page as Selwyn Evans as numerous links from other pages directed to this page. David Evans was his preferred name so I have also redirected Selwyn David Evans to here, but not David Evans as there are so many of them. It may be worth starting a David Evans (RAAF Officer) page and redirecting it and/or moving this page entirely.

Any thoughts or advice from more experienced editors/admins are welcomed. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:David Evans (RAAF officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

This is a very good article. I've got some comments for areas where it could be improved, but none are major:

  • "a VIP captain" - this sounds rather more glamorous than the job probably was! Something like 'an aircraft captain' would work better
    • You might be right but the duty was transporting VIPs and this is the expression a couple of sources use.
      • Fair enough then - I guess that the job involved extra responsibilities Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any significance to Evans being "the very last name in the 1947 Air Force List"? - does this mean that he was the most junior officer in the RAAF at the time? (or something else)
    • Yes, it means most junior -- perhaps I'll reword it to that and not bother with the direct quote, eh?
  • I've tweaked the article's wording to clarify that he was a member of RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift
    • Tks mate; when I first drafted it there was no specific mention of the squadron in my sources but later it did come up somewhere and I just hadn't fine-tuned it.
      • There's some additional stuff on him in Operation Pelican which I'll add in tomorrow Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his duties including an exchange posting with the Royal New Zealand Air Force from May 1951" - do we know when this exchange was completed?
    • Yes, July 1953 -- but I see that might not be obvious as written, will tweak a bit.
  • "Evans also dabbled in politics" - 'dabbled' seems a rather mild term for this - Eden-Monaro is a 'bellwether seat' and candidates put their all into winning it
    • Yes you're quite right; I used "dabbled" in my first draft because he tried it once and that was it but the seat was indeed vital so I'll probably reword before ACR. Many thanks for your review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I've suggested some modifications in the comments above
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airmen Aircrew[edit]

I don't know what Alan Stephens actually wrote in your reference 27 (and knowing Alan, I doubt that he would be wrong), but incorrect inferences can easily be drawn from what is stated here about airmen aircrew, both in transport and helicopter aircraft, and wrt flight engineers in maritime aircraft. Do you mean that Evans caused the introduction of airmen aircrew in the early 1960's, or at any later date? The implication in the article as it stands is that he did something like this in 1982, but I think you will find that all he did was add sensor operators to the established airmen aircrew scheme. In fact, flight engineers and crewmen in maritime, transport and helicopter operations were virtually all airmen aircrew throughout, whereas the implication in the article is that they were previously all commissioned.Lexysexy (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. I have to admit that it sounded odd to me because I had always known flight engineers, etc, to be non-comms but then I was only working with the Air Force in the '90s so figured a change must've occurred earlier. I've checked the ref again and it's actually Evans himself speaking at the conference (the publication being edited by Stephens) and the former CAS seems pretty unequivocal. On page 45 he says "And indeed, there was the odd cell of resistance that I found intolerable. The first of these - and almost the last - concerned the decision to depart from the long-standing practice of having the whole crew of Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft (LRMPA) commissioned: that is, all sensor operators, flight engineers, etc. We were the only air force in the world to do so. [...] I favoured the change very strongly." To me the inference is clearly that at one stage all members of maritime crews were commissioned, and that after the introduction of this airmen aircrew scheme some (such as sensor operators and flight engineers) were not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Ian. I think it likely that, in the heat of the moment when speaking, Evans overstepped the mark. For the whole of my service (and NCO pilots had just been abolished when I graduated), P3 and Neptune flight engineers were airmen aircrew (indeed a couple came to my squadron in a change of role), as well as the various others mentioned above. What he said was true about sensor operators, however. Until we find another contra reference, I think it would be worthwhile to rewrite what you have so that the transport and chopper crews at least are excluded from any implication therein.Lexysexy (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me, tks for confirming. Obviously I can't do a lot to alter what the source says so I think I might just comment out the whole bit, as the article hardly stands or falls on it. I'm planning to see if I can get hold of his autobiography and use it to expand the article for FAC anyway (and at the same time check what he says there about the scheme)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I note that the line: "the scheme was later extended to the crews of transport aircraft and helicopters" is still in. It is incorrect, and should be removed, see my earlier comments above.Lexysexy (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate. I'm guessing my last edit popped up on your watchlist... ;-) That was a bit of prep work as I've now got a copy of his autobiography and am going through it per my previous comment above... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. CheersLexysexy (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None the wiser on this anomaly after reading the autobiography but, in any case, I don't think it's of great interest to the general reader so have simply removed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good decision mate. I read the Autob as well, and it is unclear what he meant to include in his commentary.Lexysexy (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Evans (RAAF officer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Evans_(RAAF_officer)&oldid=1207152712"