Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RAAF area commands

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

RAAF area commands edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

RAAF area commands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is a little unusual in that I'm unaware of any comparable history of the subject, a command-and-control system that's been defunct since the 1950s but which was a key part of RAAF operations in the Pacific during WWII. There's a plethora of references to the individual commands and indeed to the system as a whole, but I don't know anywhere that someone has distilled it all into a decent overview -- until now! I've had this on the backburner for several years, originally planning a list-like article with subsections on the individual commands following the overview but in the end I decided that the commands all justified their own articles, and that I might put them together in a GT nom/book when complete. As to the article's layout, I'm open to suggestions re. placement of the table (it's a summary, so is it best in the lead or at the end?), as well as the order of the maps (should the lead show the longest-standing arrangement, as it does now, or should we put the initial but short-lived four-command arrangement there and the succeeding five-command arrangement in the main body?) Anyway, hope you enjoy it -- thanks Rupert for the recent GAN and to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Apologies for the quality of the maps but I wanted a consistent format and no issues re. copyright so figured it was simpler to make my own. Also, while I may not progress individual area command articles beyond GAN, I think this overview is worth ACR and perhaps FAC as well, so any concerns relating to the latter are welcome too! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Ian, I actually like the maps. The standard seems okay to me, but then I guess I was never artistic! I plan to post a review, but will wait for some others to chime in first. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Given the nature of works on the RAAF, it's brave to take on an article discussing the high-level structure of the force. However, this article is in very good shape and is remarkably comprehensive. I have the following comments:

  • Having a table in the lead looks a bit odd
    • Moved to end. Also took the opportunity to summarise more fully the transition to functional commands in the lead.
  • "determined to implement " - should this be "decided to implement"?
    • I chose "determined" deliberately but I tend to agree it can sound a bit 'off' so went for "decided".
  • You could red link all the viable-looking links to articles (eg, for the training and maintenance groups) - some are currently linked while others aren't
    • Actually someone else linked those -- I wasn't planning to because until/unless NAA digitises more of the records, most of the articles will be little more than stubs and I wasn't going to bother with them as yet. I agree it should be consistent, so my preference for now is to consistently de-redlink them -- WDYT?
      • I'm very much pro-red link (per WP:REDLINK), especially as stubs on those topics would probably constitute the best thing available on them Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I suppose my perspective is a bit different and I feel, on the one hand, that a sea of red is bit much and, on the other, that sending readers off to stubs that have no more info than the current article isn't that helpful -- and having done a fair bit of checking I think that'd be the case for all the unlinked groups and commands mentioned in the article except No. 5 Maint Grp, as the unit history has been digitised. You'll find the odd commander mentioned in Trove or Air Marshals of the RAAF at APDC, but then most of them don't have articles either...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this freed the latter from garrison duties while its combat units advanced towards Borneo" - this is a bit inaccurate given that No. 11 Group was to take over most of the 1 TAF's bases in Borneo and operate over the area. I'd suggest tweaking this to "this freed the latter from garrison duties following the liberation of Borneo" or similar
    • Done.
  • It might be worth digging around in Trove for references to support a FAC, though it could be a frustrating exercise given the nature of the topic - a simple search of RAAF organisation returns over 2700 hits! [1] Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, believe me, I've been through a ton! As I built this overview offline, and the individual command articles alongside it, I did a lot of checking in Trove to try and confirm commanders and supersession/disbandment dates, and by the end I was able to discern most of that from the digitised area command histories in NAA and the OOB from Vets' Affairs. Ultimately, I think I've used the one really useful Trove entry ("Battle 'nerve-centre' goes north"), which gave a rationale for something that confused me initially, namely why NWA, NEA and Western Area lingered on awhile after their command authority had been taken over by the functional commands in 1954 (they were just being used temporarily as "remote control points" for the new functional commands). Tks for reviewing, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry Ian, following up on this review slipped my mind. I still think that all the groups should be linked, but that minor quibble shouldn't hold up the article's promotion as it meets all the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick. I guess another reason I've held off links/articles is because I like to try and do things in (pun unintended) groups and although we have formation and disbandment dates for three of the training and maint groups, No. 4 Maint is problematic. I think that at some stage in the late 1940s it was redesignated Maintenance Group (which became Maintenance Command in 1953) but none of my extensive searches have confirmed if or when this took place. Anyway I'll link the two training groups in the main body so at least we have consistency there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed for GAN, and I have reviewed the changes made since then and am of the belief that it meets the A-class criteria. I think moving the table out of the lead was a good idea; my only observation with regards to the table now is that it appears to be uncited (although the information is, of course, cited in the prose above it). Perhaps a couple of generic refs (even if they are duplicates) could be added to the stem sentence that introduces the table to alleviate any concerns that might be raised in the FAC? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Rupert -- from FAC experience I've found that a summary table (e.g. ancestors or issue in royalty articles) can be uncited so long as all the elements are sourced within the main body, so might see how we go there. Your comment was very helpful, though, as it made realise that I hadn't properly cited the disbandment years for NEA, NWA and Western Area, so taken care of that now! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no worries. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs, ext links checks out (including the chameleonic links to the official histories that keep changing their url...grumble), no duplicate links, ref consolidation checks outs, image captions look fine (no action req'd)
    • One of the images (File:RAAFAreaCommands1942.png) is missing alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR req);
      • Done.
    • Does File:Caf hardman.jpg need a PD US tag (or something like that)?;
      • Hmm, I don't think this is a simple question -- I didn't copy it to Commons and wonder if it even belongs there... GermanJoe, could you weigh in? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image should have a Commons:Template:PD-US template as well to indicate the assumed US-copyright situation. As Ian Rose pointed out, the handling of such photos in that period is a bit unclear and has been repeatedly discussed without final consensus on Commons. Personally I believe the deletion of such clearly PD photos based on some legal technicality is ill-advised. But regardless of those boring details: all non-US images should have a template for US copyright and for their home country's copyright on Commons. GermanJoe (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tks for prompt response, Joe. For everyone's benefit, I meant to say that it wasn't simple because, although clearly PD in Australia being pre-1955, it's also post-1945 and therefore didn't seem to meet the old faithful PD-1996. Anyway, more than happy to add the tag you suggest, Joe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok pls indulge the malformed, potentially not well articulated, half thought / query the follows (misquote "I don't know what I don't know" sort of thing - which is the smartest statement about intelligence gathering anybody ever said that was subsequently accused of being dumb by a dumb person, IMO of cse):
      • "Exceptions to this policy included aircraft depots and the Central Flying School that trained flying instructors, each of whose range of responsibilities crossed area boundaries and therefore came under the control of RAAF Headquarters." The area command structure was static and defensive and confined to Australia so it leaves me wondering about the RAAF units deployed beyond the boundaries of the area commands. For instance those in the United Kingdom, Middle East and Malaya etc? How would / did they fit in? I assume they were under operational command of the RAF in those areas? I guess they were deployed a little after the first incarnation of the area command system but was the need to deploy expeditionary forces considered? And how were they commanded when they were deployed? I wonder if this should this be clarified or have I "left the building"?
        • Definitely no such thing as a dumb question when it comes to command-and-control of the RAAF during WWII... ;-) Yes, I believe that in all cases you've mentioned the RAF had operational control of the RAAF units involved. There were no RAAF wings, groups or commands in Europe, ME or Malaya. Before he proposed functional commands for Australia, Goble had suggested an Air Expeditionary Force for overseas, which would have given the RAAF greater autonomy over its units in Europe and ME, but that was never taken up. I thought all this might be a bit involved and perhaps not strictly germane to this article -- it would definitely fit in a general "Command of the RAAF during WWII" article, but that's an even bigger challenge than this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise this looks like a very good article to me. It is concise, and well-written. No issues with prose or MOS etc that I could see. Anotherclown (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/RAAF_area_commands&oldid=677705815"