Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Air Combat Group RAAF/archive1
- 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.
- Pre work version: 1; B-class version: 2; current version: 3; comparison from pre-work to current version: 4
I believe this article fully meets the criteria and the difference is clear. Also see the comments here. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am concerned about the majority reliance of the article of RAAF/Defence Department sources, which are not third party. Secondly, the refs are not formatted in a complete manner, with the publisher details (DoD is written at the bottom of some of them) and "English" needs to be removed because English is the assumed default. The other minor stylistic things is that you appear to have chosen to not wikilink the geographical places, and where you have used a "main" link to subarticles, it is not necessary to link the topic again as the first word of the paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Done I think... Please let me know if there is more. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This article is in much better shape than most RAAF articles, but it's not A-class and still needs a bit of work to get there. My concerns are:
- I'm uncomfortable with the amount of text which has been directly taken from the RAAF's page on ACG, especially as this isn't identified as being direct quotes. This is bad-practice as the text is a) covered by copyright and b) not neutral.
- Which text is that? From what I have read, it is neutral, but I wrote it, so that is of course my opinion. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Some examples from the RAAF website which have been copied and pasted into the article: Air Combat Group is one of the largest Force Element Groups in the Air Force with 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew and 2000 support personnel based across Australia. It is responsible for all of the Air Force ’s F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk squadrons, plus PC-9/A Forward Air Control aircraft. and Air Combat Group maintains a busy training schedule for both air and ground crew on the F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk. Recent highlights have been providing support to Operation Acolyte (Melbourne Commonwealth Games 2006) and participation in high-end exercises such as Exercise Pitch Black in Australia and Exercise Red Flag in the United States.. This needs to be re-written and checked against a source other than the Group's website, if possible. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- The first part has been fixed. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- The socond has been fixed as well, and I will try to find another reference for it. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Some examples from the RAAF website which have been copied and pasted into the article: Air Combat Group is one of the largest Force Element Groups in the Air Force with 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew and 2000 support personnel based across Australia. It is responsible for all of the Air Force ’s F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk squadrons, plus PC-9/A Forward Air Control aircraft. and Air Combat Group maintains a busy training schedule for both air and ground crew on the F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk. Recent highlights have been providing support to Operation Acolyte (Melbourne Commonwealth Games 2006) and participation in high-end exercises such as Exercise Pitch Black in Australia and Exercise Red Flag in the United States.. This needs to be re-written and checked against a source other than the Group's website, if possible. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which text is that? From what I have read, it is neutral, but I wrote it, so that is of course my opinion. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Air Combat Group (ACG) is the group which commands the RAAF's fighter and bomber aircraft" - yes and no. From my understanding, the group is responsible for administering the RAAF's combat aircraft and ensuring that they're combat ready, but they pass from ACG's command when deployed on operations/major exercises. The RAN and RAAF's force element groups do not form part of the command chain for military operations, and commands like Air Command actually 'command' the jets during operations.
- Done
- "In a break with tradition within the RAAF" Why is this a break with tradition? The RAAF has had a very fluid command structure throughout its existence.
- I agree, so Done.
- I agree, so
- The various air bases, towns, squadrons, etc should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the article.
- I believe I have done this, where else should it be done?
- Looks goood now
- I believe I have done this, where else should it be done?
- Why does the 'Operations' section only include the deployment to Deigo Garcia, and not the more significant deployment to participate in the invasion of Iraq or the deployments to protect CHOGM or the Commonwealth Games?
- I am working on this, so it should be done soon.
- It's not correct to say that "it was deployed" to protect CHOGM, as only a squadron (or less) was used for this task. The relevant Defence annual report should say how many aircraft were used.
- Trying to find this.
- The article's sections should be combined - single para sections are much too short.
- Done I think...
- Topics which are linked in the body of the text shouldn't be 'see also's at the top of the section.
- Done
- Why do you say that the wings are "currently headquartered" at various bases? Are there plans to move them? - I believe that these wings have been located at these bases for several decades now.
- Done
- The Forward Air Control Development Unit is a training outfit, and doesn't "strike designated targets" or "conduct reconnaissance", except in emergencies (some FACDU aircraft were apparently prepared to deploy to East Timor in 1999, but would only have been used in a combat zone if things got very desperate). I believe that it's role is train RAAF and Army forward air controllers.
- why "traditional single-seat design"? Double-seat training variants of combat aircraft are nothing new.
- Done
- The Australian F/A-18s are not "carrier-capable" and it should be mentioned that they're currently being upgraded.
- Done
- The impending retirement of the F-111s and introduction of F/A-18Fs also needs to be mentioned.
- Done
- The F-111Cs are not "the "recce" or reconnaissance version of the F-111" - they're the Australian variant of the F-111 bomber. Four F-111Cs were converted to RF-111Cs, but are still capable of serving as bombers.
- Done
- All the F-111Gs have now been retired, and they were only ever used as training aircraft in Australian service. It should be mentioned that No. 6 Squadron is the F-111 operational conversion unit, and not really a combat formation per-se.
- Done
- I agree with Blnguyen's concerns about the lack of third-party references. The Australian National Audit Office released a report on the readiness of ACG's aircraft a couple of years ago which would make a good ref as this is an independant assessment of how well ACG is filling its main role. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable with the amount of text which has been directly taken from the RAAF's page on ACG, especially as this isn't identified as being direct quotes. This is bad-practice as the text is a) covered by copyright and b) not neutral.
- 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.