Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Raw/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [1].

Peter Raw

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Raw was one of the Royal Australian Air Force's leading pilots during the post-war era, but turned in a mixed performance in an important command role during the Vietnam War. He cut his teeth, and demonstrated remarkable skill and bravery, as a bomber pilot during World War II and remained in the air force after the war. He placed second in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race and commanded the RAAF's first jet bomber squadron. In 1966 he was posted to South Vietnam to coordinate air support for the Australian Army force there. He was not well suited to this role, and ended up in frequent shouting matches with his Army counterpart. This culminated in a bitter argument during the crucial Battle of Long Tan where Raw was probably wrongly perceived to be reluctant to risk RAAF helicopters to save an Army unit which was close to being overrun. After completing his posting to Vietnam, Raw served in administrative roles and commanded the RAAF's base in Malaysia.

I created this article in 2011 (before Raw's Australian Dictionary of Biography entry was published), and have worked on it on and off since then. It was assessed as a GA in 2013 and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in 2014. The article has since been considerably expanded and improved, and the recent digitisation of back issues of the RAAF's in-house newspaper make me feel confident that I haven't missed anything significant. As such, I think that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

I'll give this a look later. Might be claimed for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Bacon 00:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Optional, since this is given in the date range, but maybe tack on that he died in Richmond in 1988 to finish off the lead.
Early career
  • Why did the RAN reject him?
  • "Raw completed his training and was commissioned as an officer in December that year" - What specific rank? Based on ref 9, he was an F.O. (I'm assuming Flying officer) by the time of the 166 holes in the fuselage incident, but it's not clear when he was promoted to this rank. A little more detail on his various early-war ranks and promotions would be helpful. The source given for the engagement places him as a flying officer at that time.
    • He started out as a pilot officer - added. None of the sources say when he became a Flying Officer, and unfortunately his personal file at the National Archives of Australia hasn't yet been digitialised.
  • "He assumed command of No. 205 Group Communication Squadron in 1945" - Where was this unit based?
  • Did he get the DFC for a specific action?
Commanding officer
  • Are there any further details about what he did between 1957 and 1960? It's pretty thin in there.
    • I've added the only mention of him in the Australian media I could find, which was pretty marginal for inclusion. The coverage of Raw's career is heavily focused on his flying roles and role in the Vietnam War, and there's not much on his staff and training positions. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent career
  • Did he do anything after retiring from the air force? Did he move to Richmond after the retirment? It's a little bare in the 1978-1988 time frame, too.

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm Bacon 20:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Can I please check whether I've addressed your comments, and if you have any others? Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This is in great shape. A few comments:

Lead
Body
  • Use his full name at the beginning of the Early career section, otherwise it is uncited
  • link Apprenticeship and Electrical artificer
  • was commissioned as an officer, pilot officer? If so, when was he promoted to flying officer?
  • why link Romania but not Hungary?
  • what did No. 205 Group Communication Squadron do?
    • I'm not sure I'm afraid - I've looked extensively for this, but with no luck. I'd be guessing that it undertook miscellaneous light transport and liaison duties with light aircraft and castoffs like the RAAF's communications units did (which are themselves very obscure). This source hints at this role for the squadron when it was a flight. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what was the DFC for?
  • "was appointed the commanding officer of No. 2 Squadron" say what sort of squadron it was at the time
  • "He regularly flew combat missions" did that mean he was trained as a helicopter pilot?
  • I'm not sure about the timeline here. AFAIK No. 9 Squadron started flying missions on 30 June 1966, so if "there were tensions between the Army and RAAF over the employment of No. 9 Squadron" when Raw arrived, when did he arrive exactly? The article implies May, so this really doesn't work.
  • wasn't there also a Dept of Air directive that peacetime regs applied? See Eather, quoted in the No. 9 Squadron article.
    • That's noted in the article. The regulations weren't quite peacetime, but they were unrealistic (Alan Stephens is quite scathing about how badly prepared the squadron was for combat due to the RAAF's misconception that the war wasn't a big deal). Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were only 108 men of D Coy, 6 RAR at Long Tan, not 200.
  • Given the Warsaw airlift was a airdrop operation, I don't see how Clark could conclude "his experiences in the Warsaw airlift meant that he understood the dangers facing the helicopter pilots". I would have thought flying helicopters into a ground battle is a completely different kettle of fish.
    • I've added more material about the Warsaw airlift - the point Clark is making is that Raw had flown very difficult and risky transport missions so understood that the helicopter pilots lives were at great danger if he gave the resupply mission the go-ahead. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be worth looking at Scott's memo, reproduced as an appendix in McAulay, which gives the RAAF line on the situation on No. 9 Squadron support to 1 ATF immediately before Long Tan. I also wonder if we are getting a mainly RAAF perspective on No. 9 Squadron at Long Tan given the sources used are all RAAF-oriented. I've checked Duty First and it is silent. Could you have a look at the official history volume by McNeill and see what it says, and perhaps the other books written on Long Tan?
    • In response to the above comments, I've reworked the two paras on No. 9 Squadron and the Battle of Long Tan, including by expanding this out to three paras. Interestingly, Stephens (the official RAAF historian) is more scathing about the state of the squadron and the RAAF high command than any other source! McNeill and David W. Cameron provide a less sympathetic portrayal of Raw though which I've tried to work in. It seems that he was out of his depth during the battle, but took only slightly too long to make the right decision. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was Operation Hayman a US or Australian op?
  • The motivation for Army to take over battlefield helicopters is essentially ascribed to Long Tan, but there was more to it, and I think this is a simplification. There are plenty of journal articles and media releases about the decision, which should be consulted and reflected in the article to give a less RAAF-centric perspective.
  • I note that the ADB says Raw "hesitated" rather than refused regarding Long Tan. I wonder if the Long Tan para couldn't be more closely cited.

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties, I took part in the MilHist ACR way back when, and have kept an eye on the article ever since. Having copyedited a little before this nom, and again just now, I have the following comments:

  • I would've thought it was worth putting No. 178 Squadron under Units in the infobox.
    • The guidance for this infobox states that the 'unit' field should only be used 'for persons who are not notable as commanding officers'. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there you go, I always assumed it wasn't an either-or thing, you'd use this for units they belonged to without commanding, and the other for units they did command -- I guess no-one else knows about this 'cos I've always used both in "my" military bio FAs... ;-)
  • I notice you haven't included any Gazette refs. While three of the four I found don't really add to what you have, the DFC one includes a full citation that gives you more to work with than you have now, and includes an intriguing reference to Ploesti that could also be worth mentioning at this point.
    • I'm not familiar with navigating the London Gazette, and didn't have any luck with it - thanks. I've added material from the DFC citation, which is quite interesting as it's explicitly for the entire combat tour and notes his success as a leader of his bomber crew - this helps to explain why he made the cut for the post-war RAAF and was then given choice assignments. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He regularly flew combat missions with the UH-1 Iroquois -- since it appears unlikely he was ever at the controls, would it be worth tweaking to "flew on combat missions", or "accompanied combat missions"?
  • the relationship between Raw and senior Army commanders in 1 ATF was "most difficult" throughout the remainder of his time in South Vietnam -- I'd usually recommend attributing a quote inline (though I have little doubt it's Clark) but in this case since it's just two words I wonder if we could paraphrase ("strained" perhaps, or even "very strained"?).
  • Raw's initial reluctance to commit helicopters reinforced the perception among some Army officers that the RAAF was reluctant to support their service in battle -- could we avoid the "reluctance"/"reluctant" repetition?

That's about it, except to say no concerns with the breadth and quality of the sources -- shame that we can't pinpoint a few more precise dates but you can only work with what you have and I don't think anything vital is missing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

Support. I've made a couple of minor copyedits. Other than that I can only find one thing to complain about, which doesn't affect my support.

  • fostered an enthusiastic aircrew: I know what you mean but I think the wording isn't quite right. One fosters enthusiasm, not a crew.

A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Nick, I have only a few minor comments...

  • London to Christchurch (x3) v London-to-Christchurch (x2)
  • task force v Task Force
  • new speed record for a flight between New Zealand and Australia, completing the crossing between Auckland and Sydney in two hours and 49 minutes. - maybe needs context eg at average 500 mph and/or distance? I.e., was it a record time rather than a record speed he reached at some time during the flight? Do we know what the previous time record was?
  • air/land warfare - no link available to explain what this term refers to?
  • He regularly on flew combat missions - flew on? (or is that jargon?)
  • Australian Army is linked only in lede
  • with Raw personally briefing the crews - "personally" redundant (though I understand if there for emphasis)?
    • Yeah, I included this for emphasis given that it illustrates that he played a particularly active role in this battle after a rocky start (briefings like this would usually be handled by the squadron operations order or squadron commander at the highest, not a senior officer). Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the relationship between Raw and senior Army commanders in 1 ATF was strained " ... "did lead to a better working relationship" - any way to avoid 2 x relationship? Maybe even 'working relations'?
  • was better suited to operations in Papua New Guinea - explain why PNG came into consideration. Is the relevance for aid, training, highlands? Maybe add 'Australian administered'. (Can't have readers thinking we were at war with PNG!)
  • Raw further stated that there was - swap "further stated" to said?
  • Raw was portrayed in Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan (by Christopher Sommers) per this but I can't find an RS.
    • Yeah, I'm not sure if it's worth noting though given it doesn't seem to have been a major role/character in the movie given that lack of sourcing (I haven't seen the film, though I understand that it's pretty good).
  • Cite 25 The Advertiser. 1 January 1954. p. 3 - not a link to dab but add Adelaide?

Nothing else I can find, regards JennyOz (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Peter_Raw/archive1&oldid=986131463"