Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 77 Squadron RAAF

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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. 77 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Featured article candidates/No. 77 Squadron RAAF/archive1

One of the most illustrious units in RAAF history, mainly owing to the manner in which it single-handedly carried out Australia'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 in the present article 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 during the Korean War, 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 part the squadron played in the South West Pacific during World War II, 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—hopefully I've struck the right balance. The article just passed GAN, and if it goes well here its ultimate destination will be FAC. Tks for looking! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Ian, great article. Not much for me to say really. I only have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

suggest a slight reorder of the wording here: "the RAAF hurriedly established three new fighter units equipped with Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawks recently delivered from the United States: Nos. 75, 76 and 77 Squadrons." --> "the RAAF hurriedly established three new fighter units – Nos. 75, 76 and 77 Squadrons – equipped with Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawks recently delivered from the United States."
spelling: "maneuverability" --> "manoeuvrability". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always, Rupert -- will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

When was Cresswell relieved? And who replaced him?
- Heh, on which of his three tours as CO do you mean? I think I've put in at least rough dates for his terms ending in each case, and successors if notable, but maybe I missed something...
  - I didn't see where he was relieved the first time, only that the prospective commander was KIA before taking over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, yes, I thought I was implying that he was still succeeded by someone (wasn't anyone notable in WP terms) but I can make that explicit if you think I should. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just add something about him being relieved the first time as I was startled to see that he was mentioned as assuming command for the second time, when I didn't even know that he'd be (successfully) relieved the first time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Got it -- done, as well as the other point below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This reads oddly: As of February 1987, it had been under the control of a newly re-formed No. 81 Wing.
- Yeah, I was never a big fan of that wording myself (even though I wrote it!) -- what about "Since February 1987..."?
Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Sturm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking the opportunity while we're here, I also responded to your comments on the No. 1 Squadron RAAF FAC a little while ago... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I'd forgotten to bookmark that review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Corrected one typo and changing to support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Darn, this is good. I made some minor tweaks to one of the sections, and broke a really long paragraph. "Impacted" still isn't a verb (IMHO), and changed "was tasked with" to "conducted" (alternative would be "was charged with" (but it's still a passive structure). auntieruth (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many tks Ruth. I went with "charged with" if you don't mind as "conducted" might imply they undertook such missions in combat, which they never had to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

Gosh, there are some beautiful images in this article.

File:No 77 Sqn RAAF pilots Feb 2010.JPG USAF image. Y
File:77 Sqn RAAF pilots & Kittyhawk (AWM NWA0019).JPG PD (Aus) (1943 image) Y
File:F-51Ds 77 Sqn RAAF at Iwakuni c1950.jpg USAF image. Y
File:No. 77 Sqn RAAF in Korea (AWM JK0024) (cropped).JPG PD (Aus) (1950 image) Y
File:No. 77 Sqn RAAF Meteor in Korea (AWM JK0072).JPG PD (Aus) (1951 image) Y
File:77 Sqn (AWM JK1025).jpg PD (Aus) (1951 image) Y
File:Sabre Mk32s RAAF in Thailand early 1960s.jpg USAF image. Y
File:MirageIIIs RAAF 1984.JPG USAF image. Y
File:A21-49 YMAV 20130227 8642 (13102507125).jpg GFDL OTRS Y

All good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2014 (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.