Talk:Short Sunderland in New Zealand service

Short Sunderland in New Zealand service is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by Zawed (talk) at 10:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Military history: Aviation / South Pacific / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Short Sunderland in New Zealand service/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll have a look at this. Nudge me if I get distracted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Optional: start with 'The Short Sunderland was developed as a long range maritime reconnaissance flying boat and was ...'

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say the Sunderland had 10 machine guns, then itemise the positions of 12.

Fixed. It was 10 machine-guns of one calibre and two of another. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"which was considered to be very cost-effective." A price can be cheap or expensive; cost-effectiveness is a function of running costs over time.

Have revised. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The newly purchased Sunderland Mk III transports, of which there were already 24 in RAF service, were a modification of the standard aircraft. They had ... Its load capacity ... It was ..." Standardise the paragraph on either singular or plual.

Done, now singular. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"and had a range of 2,860 kilometres (1,780 mi)." Why is this so much less than that given under Background?

I hadn't picked this up when writing the article. Mondey, the source for the figure given in the background is not clear on which mark of Sunderland his specification data is based on but from my scouting around it may have been an earlier mark. The later marks had reduced ranged range due to modifications and weight increases. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"They were to be flown to ..." Why the switch to future tense for part of this paragraph?

Have revised. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"together as a group". Either 'together' or 'as a group'.

Deleted "together"

"Their inbound cargo was repatriated RNZAF personnel". What was their outbound cargo?

The outbound were passengers to Suva at least, as per the following sentences. No info on what, if anything, was being carried from Suva to Noumea and onto Espiritu Santo (where the main RNZAF base in the South Pacific was located). Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"a total of 8,300 personnel had been repatriated by the Sunderlands, as well as ..." Did the Sunderlands alone repatriate 8,300, or is that the total for them and the other three aircraft types?

My read of the source is that it was all four types. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"with the Sunderlands of the Flying Boat Transport Flight making weekly flights to Suva." Is that one flight a week by the flight, or by each of the four aircraft in the flight?

One flight a week. I have revised to be more clear on this. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Following a directive from the New Zealand government in May 1947, two more Sunderlands, NZ4102 and NZ4104 were subsequently converted ..." You don't need both "Following" and "subsequently".

Fair enough! Revised. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The last Sunderland, NZ4101, was disposed of later in the year." Was it also handed over to NZNAC?

Yes it was and reduced to spares later. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"parked up at Hobsonville for disposal in May 1951"; "It was disposed of in 1955." By disposal, do you mean sale?

Scrapped, have clarified. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded to all the above points, standing by for next round. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The upper surfaces of each aircraft was painted in a medium sea gray upper". "... upper ... upper..."?

Whoops, fixed. Zawed (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:SECTIONS "section headings should be unique within a page". Eg Delivery and Delivery; Operational history and Operational history.

Well, you learn something new everyday. I thought it was nice and consistent using the same subheadings for the different Sunderland models. I have rejigged the first set of subheadings, hopefully they work for you. Zawed (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the British Atomic Test program". If the article is written in BrE, that should be 'programme'.
Put in BrEng. Zawed (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the prose reviewed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have dealt with this latest round. RE source checks, I personally own the Harrison, McClure and Mondey sources so if necessary can provide photos of the relevant pages. The Dawson ref is at my local library. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Flying Boat Transport Flight began operating regular return services ..." Is the date of this known?

Apart from this new point from a reread the prose looks sound. Yeah, could you email me copies of Harrison, McClure and Mondey pages 258, 269, 270, 273, 274 and 314 please. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checks

Images are appropriately licensed.
Passes earwig.