Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 1 Wing RAAF

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No. 1 Wing RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)
Toolbox

I would like to nominate this article on one of the Royal Australia Air Force's best known units of World War II for A class status. I think that I've consulted all the in-depth references on this subject and would like to acknowledge Auntieruth55's great comments and edits. I'm interested in eventually nominating this article for FA status, so any suggestions for improvements would be fantastic. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No. 1 Wing traces its trace its lineage back to No. 1 Wing AFC, which served in the UK in 1917-18. In those days it comprised Nos 5,6,7 and 8 Squadrons, in the training role. It was reformed at Laverton in 1922 with Nos 1 and 2 Squadrons.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - do you have a source for that so it can be included in the article? Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parnell, N. M.; Lynch, C. A. (1976). Australian Air Force since 1911. Terry Hills, New South Wales: A. H. & A. W. Reed. ISBN 0 589 07153 X., pp. 9, 42
  • I can't find any record of No. 1 Wing being reformed in the 1920s - while both Parnell and Lynch and Gillison state that it was proposed to form this unit, there are no subsequent references to it (or any other wings) in these books or Chris Coulthord-Clark's book The Third Brother, including in listings of the RAAF's order of battle - these show the flying squadrons as being under the command of air stations rather than wings. Do you have any references to the unit's establishment? Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard of such a formation at that time either. In any case, unlikely it was established at Laverton in 1922 - the base didn't open until 1925 (same year as Richmond)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guess it was not formed. :( The WWI No. 1 Wing definitely existed though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the material on the 1st Wing AFC and the proposal to reestablish No. 1 Wing in the 1920s - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No problems reported with external links, dab links, or alt text. Well done!
    • Which commonwealth units were in Egypt? The article says only that spitfires were sent there as reinforcements, but makes no mention as to the units they were reinforcing.
    • For that matter, why the late start? In 1942 WWII was well underway; its seems to me that the request for planes could have come a little earlier. Was there a sudden pressing need for the planes in 1942 as opposed to 1941 or 1940?
      • Yes; northern Australia was being regularly bombed and the Australian Government was concerned that it didn't have sufficient air defence units. I need to add coverage of the war to this point as suggested by Yellow Monkey below - I'll add a note here when that's done
        • OK, I've added a couple of paras summarising the air war over northern Australia prior to No. 1 Wing's arrival in the area; I don't want go into too much detail, however, as this is an article on the unit rather than the campaign. Is this level of coverage adequate? Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there some significance in the code names selected by the Australian Government? I known in WWI that the tanks were so named because they were said to resemble water tanks and the name just stuck. Was there a similar principle at work here?
      • Not according to the sources - the aircraft were code named after a brand of cigarettes
    • What set the "tropicalised variants" apart from there non-tropicalised variants?
      • I'll look into this
      • They removed the de-icing equipment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The references I consulted said that the addition of an air filter to the nose of the aircraft was the main difference - I've added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...attended by H.V. Evatt..." What does H.V. stand for? Was that a part of the guys name or was it like a title (IE a rank for knight or something of that nature). Also, see if we have a link for air vice Marshall.
      • 'Herbert Vere'. He was normally called 'H.V.' though, so that's what I've used here. I think that linking the ranks might be over-linking.
        • Actually, he was normally called "Doc". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep, I think you could afford to say H.V. ("Doc") Evatt here, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Re. possible overlinking, I'm starting to drop links that automatically go with other links and you might consider the same. For instance, do we need to link Prime Minister with Winston Churchill? By all means include his title here but the link probably isn't necessary. Linking a rank to a person with an article may also not be so necessary. Likewise separate links of a state following a city, e.g. Darwin, Northern Territory. Simply writing Darwin, Northern Territory should be enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK - I agree, and I've made this change. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fighter squadrons' air parties arrived at Darwin later that month; on 17 January No. 54 Squadron's air party reached RAAF Station Darwin and No. 452 Squadron's arrived at Batchelor Airfield and No. 457 Squadron began operating from Livingstone Airfield on 31 January." This sentence reads funny, its got too many instances of the word "and" for one thing. See if you can reword it.
      • Will do
        • I've just re-written this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do any of the aerial battles mentioned in the article have names or articles here? If they have articles here I would suggest linking to them, if they have names I would suggest a limited number of red links for the significant battles be placed in the article.
      • No, there aren't any at present. I'm planning an article on the 2 May battle, and have added a red link to this, but I'm not sure if any of the others are particularly notable (the 20 June one might be, but I don't think it warrants a red link).
    • Why wasn't a more serious effort made to move the men forward in 44/45? The article touches on this, but doesn't exactly state what the reason was for the squad no being moved to a more active area, and I'm curious to know if anything has come up over the years that would shed some light on that mystery. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears to have been due to concerns over a renewed offensive against Darwin in 1944 and lethargy in 1945. I'll see if I can find some references for 1944. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • By late 1944 RAAF fighter squadrons in SWPA were complaining of under-employment. For this reason, No. 451 Squadron was sent from France to the UK instead of being returned to Australia in November 1944. (Herington, p. 257) Shipping, however, was in short supply, and the queue of men and equipment awaiting shipment to and from Bougainville became quite long. Under the circumstances it made no sense to ship units that were not urgently required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed - by that stage of the war the entire RAAF had been effectively sidelined, and it had no real need for any short range fighter units. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My issues have been addressed. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment The amount of people who wouldn't know even a little background would be few, but I think it should be pointed out in the main body, teh outbreak of WWII and the Japanese advance through SE Asia in 1941, else someone who has just walked out of a cave wouldn't know the reason for Australia arming herself YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - I'll add some brief background material on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added some material on this, though as I note above I don't want go into too great a level of detail. Is this adequate? Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments -- Already impressed by the level of detail in this article given the sad lack of any dedicated history of this or any other RAAF wing. Performed my usual light copyedit and made a couple of responses to others' comments above, here are some more:
    • A minor point but I think 'Churchill Wing' works better with double quotes, that's how we generally do nicknames in my experience.
      • Done
    • My RAAF Richmond history states that No. 1 Wing departed for Darwin from 31 Dec 42 to 25 Jan 43. Given your concern expressed elsewhere of possible over-reliance on Alexander, you could substitute this citation for one of hers. Page ref is p.122, book details are Roylance, Derek (1991). Air Base Richmond. RAAF Base Richmond: Royal Australian Air Force. ISBN 0646052128. OCLC 38319745. I'd be happy to add a few more details from Roylance (like the number of accidents they had training at Richmond) and substitute more citations from his book for Alexander, if you like.
      • More details would be great, but could you please leave the Alexander reference where the information is the same? - her book is more recent and was produced independently of the RAAF
    • Another minor point but, as per my ce, I think you generally need a few more commas when beginning sentences with timeframes, e.g. In late July No. 1 Wing's headquarters... seems to work better as In late July, No. 1 Wing's headquarters... Perhaps have a scan throughout... More later! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will do - thanks for the comments so far Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional cmts following my recent edits:
      • The illustrations are well-chosen and -placed but most really should be increased in size so they don't need to be opened in their own window to see reasonable detail; this is quite permissible now. The worst offender is the two Spits taking off; I couldn't even make out the second one for a while and my eyes aren't that bad... ;-)
      • Is "pagent" a typo on your behalf or Bladin's?!
      • Not sure we need the references spaced by a line... Aside from these last, it looks pretty damn good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • All done - the images have been increased to 250px, the typo fixed (it was mine) and separations between the references removed. Thanks for the RAAF Base Richmond refs. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great, full support and congrats again on a fine piece of work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/No._1_Wing_RAAF&oldid=1089031966"