Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 33 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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. 33 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

The RAAF's sole air-to-air refuelling squadron, which operated Boeing 707s for many years and has just finished re-equipping with aircraft from the other big commercial jet stable, Airbus. The article employs the same structure as my last unit ACR, No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit, and of course I'm happy to take any comments on layout as well as coverage, referencing and so on. I think this may be worth a shot at FAC depending on how it goes here, so any thoughts on that are also very welcome. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This is an impressive article Ian. I have the following comments:

"Its twin delivery systems—probe-and-drogue and boom—allow it to refuel the RAAF's McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet multi-role fighters, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III heavy airlifters, Boeing E-7 Wedgetail early warning aircraft, or other KC-30s." - the booms still aren't certified for use, and are expected to be ready in 2014: [1]
- Tks for that, mate. I thought they were only waiting on certification for the boom system, will tweak wording and employ this ref.
"It is also capable of refuelling the proposed Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter." - I'd suggest tweaking the final words here as 'proposed' isn't accurate (the aircraft are close to entering operational service with the US Military, and the Australian Government has committed to purchase at least some F-35s)
- I wasn't really happy with "proposed" either but didn't want to get into delivery schedules and so on, but on reflection I think we can just drop "proposed"...
"It was equipped with four Short Empire flying boats transferred from No. 11 Squadron" - am I right in thinking that these were ex-civil (Qantas?) aircraft?
- Not sure Eather or Units mentioned this explicitly otherwise I think I'd have said so. Could I trouble you to check Eather at least?
  - Eather p. 68 states that all the Empires were "impressed". The caption to a photo of an Empire on p. 69 states that "Former Qantas Empire flying boats were operated by 33 Squadron in the transport role." Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the Royal New Zealand Air Force's McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawks," - do you mean "Douglas A-4K Skyhawks" here? (which, as a hint, may be worth red linking)
- Heh, I think I originally just had "A-4 Skyhawks" with a piped link to the article, then decided to spell out McDonnell Douglas so lost the more generalist pipe wording. Might go back to how I had it to avoid a red link...
  - That seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"On 5 March, one of the 707s undertook the first operational aerial tanker mission since the squadron's re-formation in 1983" - should the date of the tanker conversion be referenced here rather than the date the squadron re-formed in the transport role only?
- Probably it should but the ref employs the 1983 date...
"the 707s were running afoul of foreign noise and emission regulations when carrying Australian VIPs" - I think I've read that Australian diplomats often obtained exemptions to these regulations when carrying VIPs, so this might not be strictly accurate Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The version of the article I began with a while back said so but it wasn't sourced and I couldn't locate anything reliable that said it either. The closet I could get was my old Air Force Today mag that supported what we have in the article now. I don't think "running afoul" precludes waivers but my source doesn't state that explicitly. Many tks for review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about "the 707s were not in accordance with..."? "running afoul" suggests that they were violating the regulations, which wasn't technically the case. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Altered things in various ways that I think should cover the above points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool -- FTR, I'd forgotten that the RNZAF had its own A-4K Skyhawks before it picked up the RAN's old G models (must've thought all NZ's were redesignated Gs) so tks for fixing that up! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"By the mid-1990s, the age of the aircraft and its power plant meant that the 707s carrying Australian VIPs were no longer compliant with foreign noise and emission regulations.": I suggest: By the mid-1990s, the ageing 707s carrying Australian VIPs were no longer compliant with foreign noise and emission regulations.
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made a minor tweak; please check you are happy with that. Otherwise, it looks good to me. Images seem appropriately licenced, referencing and coverage are fine, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks mate, appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- No dab links [2] (no action req'd).
- External links check reveals a few dead links [3]:
  - Australian Defence Force contingent deployment to the Gulf to continue (info) [defence.gov.au]
  - Farewell of 84 WG Detachment (info) [defence.gov.au]
    - Updated with archived URLs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Images all have Alt Text - [4] (no action req'd).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
- Images are all PD/free or have a valid fair use rationale and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [5] (no action req'd).
- No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
- Prose looks fine, no MOS issues I could see.
- Other than the minor technical issue with the dead links this article looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.