Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 77 Squadron RAAF/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

No. 77 Squadron RAAF edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most famous units in RAAF history, mainly for the way it single-handedly carried out the service's air combat commitment to the Korean War. Its role there could easily fill an article of its own, having inspired three full-length books—the latest of which I've used as a source here as it draws heavily on the earlier works, as well as having the benefit of recent research. It's sobering to realise that in three years of combat in Korea, No. 77 Squadron lost 41 pilots killed, more than twice the number it lost in three years of combat during World War II. The Korean legacy should not, however, obscure the squadron's part in the Pacific War, for which it earned a string of battle honours, nor its contribution to the security of South East Asia in the 1960s, nor its continuing role as one of Australia's frontline fighter units. Thanks to everyone who supported at the article's recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Raaf_77sqn.jpg: when was this crest created? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks for stopping by, Nikki -- not stated explicitly but the website is copyrighted 2012, will that do the trick? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The crest design definitely precedes the website (eg [2]). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah sorry, Nikki, I thought you meant that particular image of the crest. Can't say for sure -- oddly enough, none of the secondary sources I have spell it out. Since the design commemorates the squadron's Korean involvement I assume it was designed after July 1953 but even after scouring the operational record books from then until 1959 all I could find was a reference to it being displayed in July 1955, nothing about exactly when it came about -- so I think the best we can say is "c. 1955"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nikkimaria: your thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • That should be fine for fair-use. It would be nice to have a bit more information, particularly to be able to discern when it might enter the public domain, but if those details are unavailable then we can work with what we have. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Tks for copyedit, Dan. The only thing I preferred the old way was "first jet combat claim", as "first claimed hit on a jet in combat" seems a bit of a mouthful...
  • "Several Australian families were still living at Iwakuni pending their repatriation from what had become an operational theatre, and could watch the Mustangs depart for missions over Korea.": This feels out of place somehow; maybe it just needs more, or less, or maybe I'm not following.
    • If you think it affects the flow there, what if came after the first operation, i.e. after "The squadron flew its initial escort and patrol sorties from Iwakuni on 2 July 1950, becoming the first non-American UN unit to commence operations"?
  • "two pilots died as a result of a fire in their quarters": Did they die in the fire, or from injuries sustained in the fire, or because of the fire? (in the last case: how did they die, then?)
    • Tweaked.
  • "Mk.8": clear enough, but is "Mk. 8" wrong?
    • Well the RAAF generally uses it without a space I think.
  • "Yalo River": Yalu?
    • Woah, fixed.
  • "among observers who believed": if this means "among those who believed", I think that would be clearer. "observers" is a bit mysterious.
    • Where's your sense of adventure, Dan...? ;-) No, happy to go with your suggestion.
  • "has been cited as a factor in the United States agreeing": Could you reword that?
    • Um, "has been cited as a factor in the United States' decision"? If not, happy to take suggestions...
  • Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Terrific article. It's got the passive voice issue, but I fixed some of the worst of it--feel free to revert if I've overfixed, or changed the meaning.
  • Sources are all reputable, although I don't own them, don't have access to them any more so I cannot spot check pages etc.
  • Overall Support auntieruth (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for copyedit and support, Ruth. Some of the passive voice might originate from a desire to avoid close paraphrasing of sources, and some to mix up the expression, but basically happy with your changes. The only one I might change back if you don't mind is "the Meteors found a suitable offensive role" as machines "finding a role" sounds a little odd to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Is there an article on temple lions?
  • The caption of Cresswell briefing pilots in Korea stated that he was now a squadron leader, is that correct? I expect that he'd been reduced in rank with the post-war downsizing, but they sent him to Korea without a promotion back to wing commander? None of this is really relevant to this article, but it did make me curious as to who he'd pissed off among the RAAF brass hats.
    • Well he was court-martialled during WWII for using his revolver to put a bullet next to the foot of a fellow officer who'd apparently been annoying him but apart from that... ;-)
  • I know he's linked in the infobox, but Cresswell and the other commanders should probably be linked on first mention in the main body as well.
    • Heh, was hedging my bets there but I guess I'll be creating the Cresswell article soon enough while all this is fresh in my mind... I think he's the only CO without a WP article who clearly meets notability criteria.
  • it was speculated at the time, and subsequently ascertained I think that "confirmed" works better than "ascertained".
    • Fair enough.
  • Why is Heineman the only publisher that's linked? Please be consistent.
    • I tend to link all publishers that have WP articles but some editors don't seem to like that and remove them, which doesn't fuss me overly but obviously they miss some occasionally -- will tidy up.
  • Otherwise sourcing is good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see this fine article at FAC. I have the following comments:

  • The first para of the World War II section could more clearly explain the situation at Darwin when No. 77 Squadron arrived; the fact that the town and its surrounds was being regularly raided isn't clear at present (though it is implied), and you could note that it replaced a USAAF fighter group
    • Gillison, Johnston and the RAAF Historical section don't appear to state explicitly that 77 Sqn replaced a USAAF fighter group (the 49th I believe), although browsing Darwin Spitfires I notice that Cooper effectively says that 77 and 76 Sqns (which arrived in Darwin from Milne a month after 77) replaced the 49th, but I wonder if that will be a bit complicated so early in the history... Also I get the impression from most of the sources that Japanese raids had lessened by the time 77 Sqn arrived in the north (Cooper says "night raids only"). WDYT?
      • I think that Cooper's material is worth including Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I think I found a way of mentioning the 49th without the added complication of bringing in 76 Sqn or the additional ref... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February 1943 the squadron was deployed to Milne Bay in New Guinea" - you could note that it was relieved at Darwin by No. 1 Wing RAAF (see that article for refs for this and the above)
    • Again I don't think Gillison states explicitly that 77 Sqn was relieved by 1 Wg, but I've mentioned that their respective departure and arrival coincided.
      • That looks good - I might have read a bit too much into that passage! Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of the squadron's operations in 1943 and 1944 would benefit from some brief material explaining the strategic context (eg, supporting the various offensives which led to the 'reduction of Rabaul' in 1943 and early 1944, and the drive towards the Philippines for the remainder of 1944) - if it helps, there's stuff (or at least references!) in the No. 75 Squadron RAAF which should give you a feel for what I'm suggesting here
    • Okay, will look into it.
      • Hi Nick, added a sentence on the grand plan of early 1943 that hopefully puts most of what follows in context -- think I've responded to everything now one way or 'tother. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a little bit on late 1944 as well (though 77 Squadron seems to have relocated less frequently than other RAAF fighter squadrons) Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 21 March, it joined Nos. 3 and 75 Squadrons as part of No. 78 Wing" - this wording is a bit unclear: is this the date 78 Wing was established, or the date 77 Squadron was transferred into it?
    • Clarified.
  • Do any of your sources note 77 Squadron pilots and aircraft being rotated through 79 Squadron during its period in Thailand? (as likely happened)
    • Done.

Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much for review/suggestions, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/No._77_Squadron_RAAF/archive1&oldid=642523274"