Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2018 [1].

Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in my occasional series on aircraft operated by the Australian military covers a large helicopter type which has been operated in various forms since 1974. A total of 30 Chinooks have been acquired by the military, and have provided useful service in Australia and overseas. This has included combat operations in Afghanistan, an embarrassing deployment during the 2003 Iraq War and an amazingly varied set of duties domestically (my favourite being transporting bulldozers onto a grounded iron ore ship!). No single detailed sources on the history of the helicopter in Australian service exist, and I've developed the article from a large number of sources to fill the gap. This appears to have been successful, with elements of article recently being lightly paraphrased on (to put things kindly) for an article in a commercial defence magazine.

This article was assessed as GA class in July 2016, and passed a military history Wikiproject A-class review last October. It has since been further expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Ref 52: Missing publisher details
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 56: link no longer goes to the source article
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 59: I imagine the publisher is the Ministry of Defence - it certainly isn't "Media release"
- No, the publisher is minister, as labelled (the Department of Defence has various disclaimers to separate themselves from media releases issued by their minister, in line with the usual arrangements for Australian Government agencies: the department usually hosts their minister's media website, but takes no responsibility for what's posted there). I've used the 'website' field to note that this was a media release. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 64: Strictly, "News Corp Australia" is the publisher. news.com.au is the website
- That's the 'work' field. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 73: "Flightglobal" should not be italicized
Ref 85: Neither should ABC News.
- In both cases, this is what the 'work' field spits out. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, sources look in good order and of the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Brian Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ by JennyOz

Hi Nick, I've had a gnome's look...

two serious accidents. On 26 June 1975, A15-011 crashed - mention if crew not/injured?
- Good catch - I've found a source saying that they were all uninjured. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
unaware of presence of power lines - the presence?
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A 2005 history also started that one - stated?
- oops! fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Squadron's operations were constrained at this time - C?
- Yes, it looks like I copy edited that out: fixed. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, regards, JennyOz (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Jenny Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have followed review and happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Placeholder~~ by Ian -- I reviewed at GAN or ACR (or both!) so will visit here when I get the chance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There've been a few changes to this useful and comprehensive article since ACR and I've gone through all of them and copyedited where I think worthwhile, but generally I think the article has only improved. I just have one relatively minor point re. prose, and it's right at the top:
- "A total of 30 of the type have entered Australian service" -- I know MOS discourages starting sentences with digits but "A total of" is redundant and I think grammatically you should then say "has entered service" because it's one total, even though that may sound odd to some ears. I think in this case we'd be better of writing "Thirty of the type have entered Australian service" (or just "Thirty Chinooks have entered") and use "ten" for "10" later in the sentence for consistency. Whether you then spell out figures under 100 in the rest of the article is up to you but I've always done so and been able to justify it for reasons like this, and also simply the plethora of digits in military articles (model numbers, unit numbers, etc)...
  - That does read better changed Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content-wise, I guess the only query I have (and I daresay you'd have included it if reliably sourced) is if the Chinooks have been (or can be) carried by our Globemasters, as they apparently can be, per one of the images, by USAF Galaxys.
- Good catch: I've noted that the RAAF has this capability, though it seems pretty clunky to use in practice. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was happy with image licensing and source quality back at ACR and see no issues with those added since (some of the photos, new and old, are especially good).
Formatting-wise, I notice that in the sentence beginning "Two ex-US Army CH-47Ds were purchased in December 2011" the refs are not in chronological order -- is this deliberate?
- Nope: I missed this in my tidying; fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7

I reviewed this article at A-class, and considered it "worthy of Featured Article status." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.