Talk:Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Gave this a chance in case anyone else wanted to have a go but waited long enough I think... ;-) Will aim to review by the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Toolbox checks -- no dab or EL issues.

Prose/structure/content

• No probs with structure or level of detail per se
• Re. prose/content, let me know if any concerns with my copyedit; other points:
  • "The CH-47Cs had a crew of four, comprising two pilots, a loadmaster and one other" -- the last-mentioned "other" is intriguing, I don't suppose you've been able to find anything specific about their duties?
    • No - the RAAF Museum comes the closest by describing them as "aircrew". The Army designates this position as "aircrew technician" (see page 162), which also isn't clear. It seems that they serve as a gunner at present, but I can't find anything indicating that the RAAF armed the Chinooks Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "This was believed to have been the longest distance a helicopter had flown up to that time, and remains the longest flight to have been conducted by the RAAF." -- I presume "longest helicopter flight to have been conducted by the RAAF", if so best clarify I think.
    • Yes that's correct Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "carrying sized narcotics" -- I may be a bit naive when it comes to drugs but what are "sized narcotics"...?! -- never mind, the penny just dropped... ;-)
    • Oops! Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I notice you haven't used the program cost parameter in the infobox although you seem to have the costs for the acquisitions and upgrades -- do you feel it's a bit fragmented to put in there or are there in fact some details missing?
    • Essentially that the available information is too complex for the infobox - it would need to include figures in 1970, 1989 and 2000s dollars not adjusted for inflation, which would be misleading, and would somehow need to accommodate the rather unusual deal where seven of the helicopters were traded in to pay for partly pay for upgrades and new facilities for the four remaining choppers Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Referencing -- all good-quality sources and formatting seems fine.

Images -- all properly licenses; US-Gov or OTRS.

Great work as usual Nick, just let me know re. the queries above... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No prob, happy to pass. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)