Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Air Board (Australia)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Air Board (Australia)

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Long time since I've listed a PR but I think it's warranted in this case. I successfully took this article to MilHist A-Class some time ago but since then I've added further detail and re-organised somewhat the History section, with a view to finally taking it to FAC. The challenge with this entity is that although there's a wealth of relevant data around, there's no comparable detailed history that I'm aware of (although it does at least score a brief entry in the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History). Given the Air Board essentially ran the RAAF between 1921 and 1976, a highly detailed history would amount to a de facto history of the service for that period, so I've tried to restrict the information to origins, purpose, changes in composition, major or representative decisions, and dissolution, as well as highlighting those times (inevitably during international conflict) when the Air Board did not exercise complete control of its assets. I'd like input from experts and non-experts alike on how successfully it fulfils that goal, and of course anything else that strikes the reader. The subject might sound a little dry but if you're into professional rivalries and inter-departmental intrigue, you should find enough to keep you interested on those scores alone... ;-) Thanks in advance! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since posting the above I've had feedback from the Office of Air Force History, who I'd contacted earlier for an opinion on the organisation and depth of the article, the brief response being that it seemed to capture the subject "quite comprehensively" -- I'm of course still keen for comments here before FAC but I feel pretty confident that we've got the guts of it right. Pinging the usual suspects, no obligation whatsoever but all comments gratefully received: @Hawkeye7, Nick-D, Gog the Mild, HJ Mitchell, SchroCat, Tim riley, and JennyOz:. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for now. There is a long weekend here for some shenanigans in London tomorrow, so I should have time soon. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IB
  • The box is set quote wide and the flag looks a little lost in there. Given there is no image in the first section (into which the box protrudes), you could upscale the flag a little?
Organisation
  • "On its establishment the Air Board comprised the Director of Intelligence and Organisation": I struggle with the MOS's guideline on capitals on every occasion, and this is possibly one of them, but shouldn't these be lower case?
    • Yeah, I find myself going through mental gymnastics sometimes re. capitalising positions but in this case the sources are consistent about title case. I think that for common terms used in many originations likes president, vice president, director or (in the military) air liaison officer or senior air staff officer, lower case is preferred but for more specific titles like these title case makes sense...
  • "purview included the RAAF's organisation": shouldn't RAAF be in full and linked as the first mention?
    • Ha, well-spotted -- done.
  • "The AAF did pursue its own course": " The AAF pursued its own course" instead?
    • Fair enough -- done.

Done to the end of Establishing the new service: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges of command
  • "1920s and '30s": should be "1920s and 1930s" (thrice)
    • Hmm, thought the abbreviation was okay, is this a MOS thing or real-world rule?
      • An MOS one. MOS:DECADE, to be precise: "Do not write: the 90's; the 90s; or the 90s'." - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, now I look myself I think the operative clause for this situation is "Two digits (with a preceding apostrophe) may be used as an alternative to four digits, but only in well-established phrases seen in reliable sources: the Roaring '20s; the Gay '90s", but the end result is the same -- looks like "'30s" is a no-no, so changed.
    • This is actually a quote from the Air Board, unhyphenated.
  • programme or program in AusEng? (It's programme in BrEng, but not sure about in Aus...)
    • Yes, "program" in AusEng.

Done to the start of the Second WW. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Home front
  • You've got "Director of Equipment, and Finance Member" and "(AMSE), and Secretary" but "Departments of Air, Army and Navy" – you may have to check a few others to make sure you're being consistent with or without the serial comma throughout
    • Done, hopefully.
Reorganising

That's my lot, all from a position of complete ignorance of the subject - hope they help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D
  • The second para of the lead partially contradicts the first para (in regards to the AB's date of establishment and who it reported to - the difference between 'chaired' and 'controlled' is a bit technical). This is due to technicalities, but the wording could be tweaked to avoid this - perhaps by simplifying things given it's the lead.
    • Sorry Nick, could you be a bit more explicit about the contradiction(s)? I've looked over the lead a few times and I think the way I've worded it is valid but I might be missing something...
      • The first sentence of the first para implies it was active from 1921, but the next para notes it was formed in 1920. The first para says that the CAS chaired the AB, but the next para says it was actually controlled by the Australian Air Council. This is all accurate, of course, but is a bit tricky to understand without the necessary context. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well the first para doesn't say the board was active from 1921, it says it controlled the Air Force from 1921, which I think is the key point. At the start of the next para I mention its actual formation date and say why it was formed slightly before the Air Force. I'm not really sure why a member of the board being its chair should be confused with the higher authority of the Air Council, but I've changed "initially controlled by the Australian Air Council" to "initially responsible to the Australian Air Council" if that helps... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On its establishment the Air Board" - I'd suggest giving the date of establishment here
    • Done.
  • "and afterwards a deputy to the permanent head of the Department of Defence" - these people hold the title of 'deputy secretary', which I think is a long-standing APS position title. You could simplify the wording by using this.
    • Done.
  • "The minister of the department could choose to chair meetings and was expected to approve all decisions made by the board" - while this reflects what the (excellent) source says, it seems surprising as it runs against the principle of civilian control of the military and the role of ministers in Australia's system of government. Do any sources discuss this issue? (Ashworth perhaps in his work on the RAAF's dysfunctions?). The article later notes a number of occasions where ministers and the government over-rode the AB.
    • Yeah perhaps it's just how Stephens expressed himself (and I couldn't do better without editorialising). I think he meant that AB decisions went out under ministerial seal, or that AB decisions weren't official until the minister approved. Obviously, as you say, the government sometimes made decisions without even consulting the AB (EATS and the F-1111 order being two) and others where the minister made a decision counter to majority AB advice (the Morotai Mutiny sackings). That said, I think the source would support "sign off on" as opposed to "approve" -- would that help?
      • A bit, but it still seems odd. Part of the issue here might be the trivia the AB often involved itself in - ministers would have generally ticked this off without comment (with the more sensible of them wondering why they were being asked to do so given that ministers are generally not meant to not get involved in the day to day routine administration of the agencies they are responsible for). I'd suggest looking for other sources on this issue ahead of a FAC - perhaps works by David Horner on the historic command arrangements for the military? (though he tends to focus strongly on the army). Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't disagree the arrangement was odd but I think Stephens implies that and I hope the article highlights its drawbacks. I did consider at one stage a background section discussing the concept of board control of the Australia military but then decided it was too much and would better belong in an overarching such article rather than here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para that starts with "RAAF forces in the Middle East and Europe were fully integrated into the RAF chain of command" might have things the wrong way around: it seems to attribute the lack of control over Australians posted to these regions to the AB, when it was actually due to decisions made by the government. I'd suggest moving the last sentence to the start of the para, and tweaking accordingly (I guess the question is what advice did the AB give the government, and how did it try to make the best of the situation?).
  • "Burnett had recommended the Air Board's abolition" - do we know why?
    • Ashworth asks the question but can't be certain -- it seems to have been Burnett's parthian shot almost, as he was about to depart anyway. Possibly he felt it would give Bostock, his chosen successor, more power, while clipping the wings of Drakeford, with whom he never got on, and maybe he genuinely felt it was the way to go (as the Army was) but it's all speculation.
  • The issue of RAAF helicopters during the first phase of their deployment to Vietnam could be expanded upon a bit: the AB's attitudes to them have been discussed at some length in various sources, and seem bizarre: there seems to have been deep confusion over what the role of helicopters in a land war was, which reflected poorly on the RAAF's senior leadership. This is important for both operational reasons (No. 9 Squadron wasn't ready or able to properly support the Army when it deployed to Vietnam) and the long-term consequences on ADF force structure given it led fairly directly to the Army gaining control over battlefield helicopters in the 1980s. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you could write a book about the RAAF and helicopters in Vietnam but not sure I'd find much more explicitly mentioning the AB's role -- Alister Murdoch, the CAS, gets most of the commentary -- but will have a look. Thanks for those insights, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Nick, expanded the Vietnam section, particularly re. the choppers; I think it reads pretty well, my only concern is it might be a bit too much detail and straying occasionally from a strict AB focus, but see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • That looks good, but I'd suggest noting the nature of the AB's restrictions on helicopter use rather than the issue of the inappropriate material condition of the choppers: from memory, they were seen as being intended for search and rescue missions and transport in non-combat areas, which was totally at odds with what the Army actually needed. This work has a good summary of the issue (p. 83), though it attributes the directives to the 'Air Staff' - not sure if the author meant the AB here? Please disregard this if I'm getting things mixed up given the way the RAAF command structure worked. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you're entirely correct that "Air Staff" refers to the AB. Nonetheless I think the part about Air Force directives being "framed for peacetime flying" (quoting Horner) sums it up pretty well, and it has the advantage of explicitly mentioning the AB... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz

I'm in, hopefully next two days. Your unusual suspect JennyOz (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I am so sorry to make you whimper! I got down to Cold War commitments section then noticed you making changes in response to Nick's comments so stopped to wait. It's heavy going for me who knows so little about defence matters but I'm keen to continue and will hopefully get time this evening to do so. If you prefer to close this PR and head to a FAC nom I can add all my comments (and naive questions) there but I think it's probably better to get them dealt with here first? Your call Sir! JennyOz (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I think you're right on all counts, Jenny -- I'm getting ahead of myself. By all means let's wait until Nick and I have finished fine-tuning, and then love to see your comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Goodo, sounds like a plan. Thanks Ian, JennyOz (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny, per discussion with Nick, you're up if still keen... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, what a coincidence, I've been working on this today. (I'd seen Nick's comment.) I've reached the bottom and now only have to format my notes. Thought I'd take a break to check watchlist and cricket Test. Will try to add comments tonight or in morning. Beware, there are a lot of questions! I don't think I've done a PR before so it's more a FAC treatment. But that means I'll have very little if anything to ask later... and those lovely FAC co-ordinators won't have to read my long laundry list! Happy weekend Ian. JennyOz (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done! A lot but these are suggestions only to note where I tripped up as a non-expert. No need to explain why you don't take on any:) I'm glad I read it and now know more about the RAAF's history and about an org I didn't know existed...

ibox

lede

  • the Department of Defence was split - change dash in years range in link?

Organisation and responsibilities

  • The CAS was responsible for the operational - explain CAS again (or relying on lede)
    • We do spell out CAS in the first para of his section -- did we need something else?
  • As well as being members of the board, AMP, AMTS and AMSE - the before AMP?
    • Source doesn't use definite article...
  • consisting of an air marshal - refine link to Air marshal (Australia) (that page explains adopted from RAF)
  • three air vice-marshals, and - refine to Air vice-marshal (Australia)

History

  • Air Force Headquarters co-located with the Department of Defence at - DoD already linked enough?
    • Linking once per section but have refined to 1921-39.
  • extant base at Point Cook in Victoria. - not broken of course but did you see recently that Victoria (Australia) is now Victoria (state)
  • RAF motto - add translation or link is enough? (Royal Air Force has both)
    • Will think about this -- there are different English renderings...

Challenges of command and status

  • Nor did the Air Council exercise any control over the board from 1925, when it ceased meeting. - Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. What happened "from 1925"? And ambiguous, clarify "it" ie the council?
  • specialist knowledge of their experienced subordinate, the Director of Transport and Equipment, George Mackinolty - this is before Mackinolty was himself appointed to the board? Clarify that Director of Transport and Equipment is a RAAF position not a board one? Perhaps "their experienced RAAF subordinate"
  • the service had "two machines fit for war" - can't see ref but emphasize with "only" before the quote?
    • I felt it was sufficiently alarming as is... ;-)
  • received much of the credit for seeing off these threats - insert amalgamation before threats
  • According to a statement by Prime Minister Joseph Lyons, - maybe insert Australian seeing you were just talking about an English official

World War II

  • Staff of the board members' branches at Air Force Headquarters numbered thirty-eight - ambiguous, ie each or overall?
  • each with their own minister - link Minister (government)
  • authority within his sphere of responsibility - their
  • and Finance Member (FM) - move acronym up to first mention of a Finance Member?
    • Mmm, I really only wanted to use an abbreviation in this instance though so felt it worked better as is...
  • Henry Wrigley quote re Burnett - add 3x nbsp (the Joseph Lyons quote uses one)
  • "both sides of Federal politics" and "run-up to a Federal election," - not sure caps needed?
    • Let's live dangerously and see what comes up in FAC... ;-)
  • and Air Commodore Ellis Wackett the inaugural - Wackett is already linked (though I see duplicate links not so frowned on lately)
    • Yes, I seem to have anticipated the recent RFC about permitting one duplink per section -- that is kind of what I was aiming at, on the assumption that readers might only want to look a the lead, or the organisation/responsibilities overview, or the history, or the members' list. Of course this article is so specialised one will probably be able to count the number of readers on one hand but still... ;-)
  • majority of his US flying units into Fifth Air Force, - the Fifth?
  • In the immediate post-war period, the Air Board was responsible for determining which of its aircraft and other equipment was surplus - the last mentioned year is 1949 so chronology looks strange? Perhaps "was responsible for determining" could be 'had been responsible for determining'?
    • My rationale here was to do a paragraph or two on each of the branches and their leaders, so Hewitt and Personnel got two, Wackett and Engineering got one, and Mackinolty and Supply got one -- this does mean the chronology jumps around a little for the sake of what I hope is cohesiveness...!
  • This included such things as, notes the official post-war history, - the official post-war history notes these included
  • equipment up to an original value of £500, - slightly ambiguous. Maybe at the following "disposing of equipment valued", swap equipment to items?

Cold War commitments

  • RAAF combat forces deployed in the Malayan Emergency and the Korean War were directed by RAF and United Nations Air Command headquarters, respectively - I don't understand the purpose of this sort of construction that I often see. "respectively" makes the reader go back. Why not...
    RAAF combat forces deployed in the Malayan Emergency were directed by RAF and in the Korean War by United Nations Air Command headquarters.
  • owing to the personal intervention of the CAS, Air Marshal Jones - Jones prev mentioned as vice, so do we say "now Marshall"?
    • We could but I felt okay as is.
  • The official history described their first three months - which official history? The last OH mentioned is that of WWII. Is Going Solo part of an OH or is Stephens quoting from someone's?
  • owing the unit's lack of preparedness - owing to?

Reorganising the Air Force

Images

  • Coleman appears in two photos but not in members table - Coleman was a note-taking type secretary not a member? (a bit like Mrs Mackay?) Ditto F.J. Mulrooney (Secretary to the Air Board)
    • Yes, "secretary" or "secretary to the Air Board" look like the minute-takers -- if I can reliably source something about that I might put it in...
  • Image:Jones-Bostock-Burnett AWM 012249.jpg - why not drawn from commons? (I don't have any experience with images, obviously)
    • I think it is on Commons already...?
  • Photo caption "Air Board meeting, c. 1941..." - "M.C. Langslow (Secretary of the Department of Air)". Table says "Finance Member Position superseded by Secretary, Department of Air, in 1954" So does that mean in 1941 there was a Finance Member and the Secretary of the Department of Air? Or was Langslow just at meeting as Sec Dept Air, not an actual board member?
    • I suspect the latter -- probably representing the Minister for Air rather than acting as a member of the board.
  • Photo caption "Air Board meeting, July 1955..." - this caption has (some) links but other captions don't, intentional?
    • Per my one link per section rationale, yes.
  • same photo "Air Vice Marshal E.C. Wackett" - needs a hyphen?
  • Photo caption "Russell Offices, Canberra (pictured in 2006), home of the Air Board from 1961 until its dissolution in 1976". Prose says "The board and its support staff relocated from Melbourne to Russell Offices in Canberra between 1959 and 1961." Ambiguous? Can be read that they were only in Russell for 3 years. Perhaps 'commenced relocation' or swap "between" to 'from 1959' or some other slight tweak?

Members table

  • I chose one member to cross reference his changing ranks:
    Goble per members table
    1920, 1922 Wing Commander
    1925 Wing Commander
    1927 Wing Commander (later Group Captain)
    1932 Air Commodore
    1934 Air Commodore
    1938 Air Commodore
    1939 Air Vice-Marshal
    Goble per prose
    1920 Lieutenant Colonel
    Goble per captions
    1928 Group Captain
    1930 Group Captain
    Goble per his article
    1919 honorary wing commander
    1921 wing commander
    1928 promoted to group captain
    1932 temporary air commodore
    1937 temporary air vice marshal
    1940+ substantive air vice marshal
    I didn't look at ref/s. He looks fine!

Notes

  • N 90 "'Cleaning the augean stables'. The Morotai Mutiny?" - strange that part of title is lowercase especially for proper noun Augean AWM gives it a capital
  • N 110 Eather, Odd Jobs, xv–xvi - pp?
  • N 138 Lax, From Controversy to Cutting Edge, pp. 28—30 - swap em dash

That's it. Look forward to FAC. (And congrats on feedback from Office of Air Force History!) JennyOz (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all those, Jenny! I think I've left an explanation for any point I didn't implement -- if you have a sec pls check over my "per PR" changes to ensure I got things right... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I've had a look and all seems good! I'll check again at FAC. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Air_Board_(Australia)/archive1&oldid=1165851016"