Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Air Combat Group RAAF

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.

Air Combat Group RAAF edit

Previous nomination: here

I am renominating this article as I believe that it meets the criteria and it is very well written now with a copyeditor helping it along. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks good overall, these are the only problems I had:
- It needs some citations in the lead.
  - There are none in the lead because when it is expanded on in the rest of the article it is then cited, but if it is required I will do so. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there such a detailed section on the WOFF? It seems that this position would be fairly similar in all Australian air units.
  - The WOFF section is there because it is the most important (IMO) for NCO's and the Commander for Officer's. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borg Sphere (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is much improved, but I still have some concerns about whether it is A-class standard (though these are not sufficient for me to oppose the nomination). The article is still mainly reliant on RAAF websites and the 'bookrags' website is not a suitable source as it appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. I'm not convinced that this article provides a comprehensive overview of ACG - there is still nothing on the Hornet Upgrade Project, which may be the biggest thing affecting the group at present, and no use has been made of the Australian National Audit Office report on how the group has been performing in its core role of providing combat-ready aircraft. I should disclose that I have contributed to this article. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the bookrags site references, there is an extensive section on the HUG with references and a timeline. The ANAO report has been used, bit there is more that I am trying to use. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 03:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A few comments below:

I usually tell editors that they should avoid one paragraph sections, because it makes the article look choppy. I just checked WP:MOS (MoS), however, and it doesn't say anywhere in there that I could see that one-paragraph sections are wrong. Up to you, but I think the article would look better if some sections were merged or expanded.
You begin several sentences with "This" and "It", often in close succession. Again, the MoS doesn't prohibit this. Writing guides, such as this one [1], or this one [2] emphasize variety in sentences. For example, where you say:

"Two Force Element Groups, Strike Reconnaissance Group (F-111) and Tactical Fighter Group (F/A-18 Hornet, Hawk and PC-9A), were merged to form Air Combat Group. This establishment occurred on 7 February 2002. ACG was tasked to deliver the core capabilities of Control of the Air and Precision Air Strike. This was done with the hope that it would allow the RAAF to more quickly deploy its combat aircraft. Although the fighter and strike elements will continue to operate as discrete units for some time, ACG will provide the opportunity for the RAAF to test the organisation required to deliver a range of combat capabilities. This combining had about 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew, and around 2000 personnel."

Could be written as,

"The Air Combat Group (ACG) was created on 7 February 2002 with the merging of Two Force Element Groups, Strike Reconnaissance Group (F-111) and Tactical Fighter Group (F/A-18 Hornet, Hawk and PC-9A). The ACG was tasked to deliver the core capabilities of Control of the Air and Precision Air Strike with the hope that it would allow the RAAF to more quickly deploy its combat aircraft. Although the fighter and strike elements will continue to operate as discrete units for some time, ACG will provide the opportunity for the RAAF to test the organisation required to deliver a range of combat capabilities. One hundred forty-five aircraft, 163 aircrew, and around 2000 personnel make up the ACG." [Actually, this last sentence should go in the "Structure" section]

In this way you can give more variety in the flow of your prose.

I have altered the parargraph as suggested. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an object in a photograph is looking, facing, or moving towards the right, then the photo should be placed on the left side of the article. Somehow this gives the article more impact, perhaps because the reader's eyes are directed towards the text by the action in the photo. It's ok for the photo to overlap section breaks on the left.

Done

Not all of your references in your footnotes appear to be listed in your references section. Perhaps this isn't necessary, but again, I think it makes the article look more complete.

Doing...

All in all, I think it's a good, informative article on the subject, but I think addressing some of these issues will definitely make it A-class. Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - based on the five A-Class criteria.

A1. Adequate citation though I'm uncomfortable with the reliance on government sources. Is there any news coverage available to flesh this out a bit? "Annual Report 2001-02" should really say of what it's the annual report.

Done the reference, will look for more news coverage. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A2. As there is little non-government material is this really comprehensive or neutral?

I believe so, but if there is anything not neutral, please say. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A3. The lead section is skimpy and should probably be doubled in length. It's not clear what is notable or encyclopedic about the "Warrant Officer Disciplinary" section. "Operation Falconer" needs a link.

~~Doing...~~ Done the lead, Operation Falconer has no co-existing article on Wikipedia, but I don't really know where to begin to be bold at creating it. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A4. Needs a tidy up for typos (separate etc) and to de-link dates. The Phase 1, 2, 3 etc sections are, I suspect, incomprehensible to the layman and need lightening up and linking.

Doing... -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A5. Fine

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes this source reliable? To me, it seems a little iffy, as the site appears to be a one man fansite (albeit better run than others I've seen). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your opinion and I agreed with it up until recently. (Until I put this article up for A-Class review.) I believe the website is reliable because all of the information on it seems to have been checked out against other reliable sources, such as the ADF website, Australian Gov't website, Boeing, etc... CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support w/comment I would suggest double-citing the information sourced to the fan site link, or taking the site over to the reliable sources noticeboard before going to FA (if you decide to go to FA). In this manner you can be prepared to defend the site should the need to do so over there arise. Otherwise, it all looks good and ACR compliant. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I have done as you asked and double referenced it all. CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 02:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comment The last sentence of the introduction is either superfluous or lacks sufficient detail. When I viewed the page the notes section was corrupted - probably a typo but please check it. Dhatfield (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2008 (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.