Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 36 Squadron RAAF

< 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 Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. 36 Squadron RAAF

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


A follow-up to my fairly recent ACR for No. 33 Squadron, this focusses on Australia's heavy airlift unit, which operates the biggest asset in the RAAF's inventory, the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. It was also the first squadron outside the US to fly the venerable Lockheed C-130 Hercules, which it employed for almost 50 years. The "trashies" (trash-haulers) may not have a particularly glamorous job, but they do have a vital and, I think, interesting one. Enjoy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • The Unit History Sheet says:
    The King of Arms said of the design: "The Horse symbolises activity, strength, speed, mobility, and absolute reliability."
  • I'm a little uncomfortable with the text, but I can't put a finger on it. It's probably that I just don't believe that when people look at the horse, that's what they're thinking ... I think they see a horse. One option would be to attribute the opinion to the King of Arms.
    • I didn't particularly want to bring the King of Arms into it but would ...depicts a horse intended to symbolise "activity, strength, speed, mobility, and absolute reliability" be an improvement?
      • Don't quotes need to be attributed in-text? - Dank (push to talk) 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, then how about the original wording but with "intended to symbolise" in there? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)][reply]
          • Sure, a paraphrase of some kind plus "intended to symbolise" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "meaning that No. 36 Squadron became responsible": leaving No. 36 Squadron responsible
    • Much better, tks.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Ian, I couldn't find much other than a duplicated word (which I fixed). The only other point that seems inconsistent is how you treat introductory commas, e.g. "In 1953 it..." v. "In 1945, a..." Otherwise, it looks pretty good to me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, believe it or not there is a method to my madness, though its validity may well be challenged. I tend to omit the comma when more punctuation appears in the sentence soon after (the "In 1953 it..." example) and employ it when there's a fair bit of text before the next punctuation (the "In 1945, a..." example). I guess I write the way I'd read something out loud, using the comma to put in pauses where I feel it's appropriate, and that's the method for good or ill... Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • What's the significance of the Squadron Standard?
    • It's the squadron's special flag -- I could link it to Heraldic flag if that helps...
      • I know what it is, but I was just wondering if it lacked one before the Prince awarded it or if it was some sort of honor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, right. The implication is that it didn't have one before. It was presumably presented at this time because it the RAAF's golden jubilee, but no source I have connects the two so I'm afraid that'd be OR. However, now that I've re-checked, I find I can elaborate a little on the reason it was awarded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images appropriately licensed. No duplicate links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an impressive article Ian. I have the following comments:

  • "conducting missions in support of military operations and humanitarian efforts" - "in support of" is rather passive, especially as the Globemasters are often the only Australian military contribution to the operation (for instance, the recent deployment to Japan). I'd suggest replacing this with "as part of"
    • Okay.
  • "The squadron operates six Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs, which entered service in December 2006" - I'd suggest tweaking this to acknowledge that it took several years for all six aircraft to be delivered (eg, to something like "which began to enter service in December 2006")
    • Heh, great minds again... I considered putting it as you suggest, then figured "entered service" shouldn't necessarily imply they all arrived at once, so left it. Given your reality check I'm happy to reword... ;-)
  • I'd suggest expanding the coverage of the final years of C-130H operations to note the post-invasion of Iraq deployments to the Middle East, the squadron's role in supporting special forces (I remember seeing some vague references to the unit having a dedicated special forces flight, but am not sure if that's correct - I suspect that it's not given the small size of the RAAF's C-130 fleet) and the conversion of one of the C-130Hs to the signals intelligence role.
    • I'll look into that.
  • I'd also suggest that the material on the introduction of the C-17 note the training of personnel in the United States which preceded the delivery of the first aircraft
  • It would be worth also noting the temporary movement of the squadron's aircraft to Richmond during the 2011 Queensland floods, as well as the fact that all of its three flyable C-17s were in Japan at one point during the relief operations there. Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, given that 36SQN and the C-17 are synonymous and we have your excellent article on the aircraft in Australian service, I tended to err on the side of brevity in describing their history. Again, happy to take on these suggestions... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I think I've addressed all the suggestions, and added a few more snippets that seemed appropriate. I may split some of the longer paragraphs but let me know how you feel about the mods first. Could you do me a favour BTW? Windering if you could check your copy of the RAAF Historical Section's Transport Units and let me know of any losses 36SQN suffered in WWII, as I think that'd be worth adding -- I'm sure I saw a report of at least one crash during the war but don't seem to be able to lay my hands on it, so I assume it was in that volume (surprised Rupert didn't question me on the losses, he usually does)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gday - I happen to have the set at home. Actually they suffered a number of operational losses. Per volume 4, page 56: "On 14 September [1942] a DC-2 proceeded to Port Moresby but crashed and burned whilst landing on Seven Mile Strip, killing all crew and destroying all cargo." Per p. 57: "The Squadron suffered more fatalities when in February 1945, VH-CUF failed to return from a supply dropping mission in enemy territory in the Aitape area. The survivors were recovered by an Army patrol of commandos, but there were four fatalities." And another one per p. 57: "The flying progress continued to be hampered in this period when VH-CIG crashed again in the Aitape area. All crew and passengers were killed, with the plane later located by a native patrol." Anotherclown (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have now been addressed - great work (thanks also to Anotherclown for answering the above question!) Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick. I've split those long paras up as I threatened to, meaning some more subsections might be in order so will probably add something along the lines of Hercules era in place of Vietnam War era and after and Globemaster era for the last two paras -- not exactly in line with terminology of the first two subheaders but seems the most logical thing; happy to entertain alternate suggestions from you or the other reviewers of course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action req'd).
    • All images have Alt Text [3] (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Images are all either PD / or have an appropriate FUR and are appropriately licenced as far as I can see.
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
    • Recommend adding WWII losses per above.
    • Suggest rewording here: "No. 36 Squadron handed over its six Dakotas to No. 38 Squadron in July 1958, preparatory to re-equipping with the Lockheed C-130 Hercules." Perhaps consider something like: "No. 36 Squadron handed over its six Dakotas to No. 38 Squadron in July 1958, prior to re-equipping with the Lockheed C-130 Hercules." (suggestion only)
    • Otherwise excellent. Anotherclown (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tks mate, thought I'd used "prior" enough in the article but in fact it was only once, so have altered per suggestion. Tks also for the Units info, I know it's odd I don't have my own copy but I'm used to just stopping by the Mitchell Library, where they have everything... Will add something re. the losses later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay that's done, found a report of another accident on top of those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • "it supported Australia's naval contribution to the Gulf War" how much supplies did it carry? Where to?
    • The source doesn't describe supplies but I can add the destination.
  • "10,000 km (6,200 miles)" vs "16,000,000 pounds (7,300,000 kg)" Metric should go first. Also, there's no conversion for "70 tonnes".
    • Well I think the primary figure/system should be whatever's provided by the source, and that's what I've used here. There's not a huge difference between tonnes and tons so I didn't bother with that one but I'm happy to add it if you still think we should -- or did you have another conversion (e.g. to pounds) in mind?
  • "C-17 operations by" Comma should probably go after operations. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, it still reads better to me without, not sure what others think... Anyway, tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2013 (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/No._36_Squadron_RAAF&oldid=575121034"