Talk:No. 486 Squadron RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Nice work scraping so much material together on this unit. I have only the following suggestions:

• Do we really know that this unit is "permanently disbanded" (eg, that it will never be re-raised? - it's certainly unlikely, but not necessarily impossible)
  • Indeed, I think in the first draft I wrote that it was "temporarily" disbanded during 1964-66 then thought better of it as a) the dates made clear that it was temporary and b) they probably didn't know it was temporary at the time... ;-)
• "under the aegis" usually means something like "under the protection of", which I don't think is what you mean here
  • I know that's a definition but it's a fairly common term in the sources when describing the relationship of a wing and its units. I generally employ to avoid repeating "under the control".
    • How about "was part of" or similar? Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• "No. 486 Squadron was responsible for servicing the refuelling pods" - this seems potentially confusing given that the unit remained responsible for servicing the rest of the aircraft (I think?)
  • Good point -- reworded.
• I presume that there are no mentions of members of this unit being deployed away from their home base to service/recover aircraft other than during the pilots strike and the deployment to Somalia?
  • I trawled the APDC timeline and various books and the only other thing I found that I didn't use was this -- I would definitely have used it if it was clear that it was the first time the Hercs had been employed for such a task, otherwise I didn't think it was that notable. Can add if anyway if you think it's worthwhile (in which case perhaps we'd copy it to the C-130s in Australian Service article)...
    • I agree - this seems to suggest that sending members of of 486 Sqn to support Hercules detachments was a fairly routine thing (which makes sense) rather than this being an unusual occurrence. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Is this story worth including? (the accident wasn't service-related, but it must have been a terrible blow to the squadron). Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to add it, will await your responses to the other points before doing so. Tks for reviewing! BTW, this has shown up on DYK as we speak... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Still going to add this but may take a quick break first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
      • OK. Given that this article is of GA standard without that addition (which is the only thing I could find on the unit in Trove) and is currently on the main page I'll pass this now. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Tks Nick -- all done now I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: