Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2017 [1].

No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article might sound like a cure for insomnia but the story kind of belies it. The oldest continually operating formation in RAAF history, 1AD's heyday was before World War II, when it was not only responsible for aircraft maintenance but also for organising several pioneering survey flights in Australia and overseas. Its testing program during the war prefigured the work done by the RAAF's current research facility, ARDU. After the war 1AD got the RAAF's first jets ready for service, before losing first its airframe and then its engine maintenance responsibilities in the 1960s, and seeing out its days supporting mainly ground equipment. Thanks to everyone who participated in the recent MilHist A-Class Review, and to all who stop by here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (There was very little to do, as usual.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This is a very impressive article on what's now an obscure unit. I have the following comments and suggestions:

"when it assembled, tested and repaired aircraft ranging from Tiger Moths to Spitfires to B-17 Flying Fortresses" - perhaps indicate why this is a wide range of aircraft (eg, 'from Tiger Moth trainers to Spitfire fighters and B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bombers"
- Fair enough, will do.
"the depot was organised into a headquarters controlling stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections" - this is a bit confusing. Do you mean "the depot was organised into a headquarters which controlled stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections"? (or "the depot was organised into a headquarters, controlling stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections"?)
- Excellent point -- the former is correct, will tweak.
Given the low quality of the 'Supermarine Seagull of the Papuan Survey Flight' photo, could another option be substituted?
- I'll see if there's anything around...
  - Nick, this and this depict Seagull A9-6, which according to The Third Brother was part of the survey flight along with A9-5, whose picture I agree is not fantastic quality -- either of those grab ya? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first of those options looks good. The second appears to have been taken in Hobart so might be of a different period. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"By the mid-1930s, No. 1 AD comprised some 350 staff" - is it possible to compare this against the strength of the RAAF at the time? It seems to have been a fairly large chunk of the force (for instance, the ABS' Year Book Australia 1936 puts the entire strength of the RAAF at under 2000 personnel - which is also an interesting comparison to this unit's peak wartime strength!)
- Good idea, I'll see what's in The Third Brother, otherwise perhaps could just use the ABS ref.
  - Hmm, re-checking the source for 350, it doesn't give an exact year for the figure, and according to The Third Brother the total strength went from 817 in 1934 to 1,955 in 1937, so I'm not sure how meaningful a comparison would be after all -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess that you could safely say that the force's strength was under 2000. It does seem useful noting this given that what sounds like a pretty obscure unit actually represented a big chunk of the air force. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, had a go -- see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"After the war, No. 1 AD was responsible for introducing the first jets into RAAF service" - could more detail be provided on the unit's role here? Given its functions, am I right in thinking that the unit's aircraft assembly sub-units assembled and readied the jets after they arrived in Australia, and its Special Duties and Performance Flight then conducted trials? Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I can find more detail... Thanks for reviewing, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Following up, per the article, by the time the jets were introduced, 1AD's Special Duties and Performance Flight had evolved into the separate Aircraft Performance Unit (ARDU from 1947) so the implication is that 1AD did assembly and/or modifications, and APU/ARDU did trials. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good Ian, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Its dull title might make it a contender for a 1 April TFA though ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 This article is in fine shape, my only query is about whether "Wing Commander Bill Anderson" should probably be just Anderson per WP:SURNAME. Alternatively, "Anderson returned to command the depot in the rank of wing commander from..." But not a biggie. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much for review, PM, and the suggestion -- I've done something along those lines now. Cheers, 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Image and source review

all images are appropriately licensed
all sources appear to be reliable, a spot check was conducted of fn 2, 15, 31 and 32. No issues identified.

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that, PM. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.