Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 91 Wing RAAF

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. 91 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Featured article candidates/No. 91 Wing RAAF/archive1

Nowadays when the RAAF has to deploy a mixed bag of aircraft to support a foreign war it forms an air task group, but in the 1950s it was "composite" wings. This article is on the one established to administer Australia's air units in the Korean War, contemporaneous with No. 90 Wing (currently the subject of a Featured Topic nomination for those interested!) in the Malayan Emergency. I'd like to see this at FAC some day so pls let me know any thoughts from that perspective as well. Many tks for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
"It was now the largest squadron in the RAAF…". Perhaps this might be clearer as "It was the largest RAAF squadron at the time…"
- I thought it worked quite well as is but if anyone else thinks it reads oddly I'll be happy to change it.
"No. 391 Squadron followed suit on 30 April 1955; No. 91 Wing headquarters disbanded the same day". This might be slightly smoother if you replaced the semi colon with an "and".
In the References section, "Australian Government Publishing Service" may be overlinked. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the last two -- tks as always for looking this over, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

In the second paragraph of the lead, could I suggest dealing with the various squadrons in the same order you introduce them in the first paragraph?
- The order I've introduced them in the first para is effectively by notability, i.e. the combat squadron, the transport unit, and then the two support units, as they were when 91WG was formed. There were several ways I could've organised the second para but after a couple of attempts I felt it worked better to talk about their history chronologically per unit, starting with the first change in status. Happy to consider changing it but I wouldn't mind seeing if there are other opinions if that's okay.
Last sentence of the lead, is that April 1955?
I think there is a missing word or two here: "...augmented by additional No. 491 Squadron..." Perhaps that should be "...augmented by additional No. 491 Squadron staff..."?
- Actioned the last two points, tks for reviewing Zawed! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the lead doesn't worry me now you explained the rationale behind it. Have added my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Everything looks good to me. Adding an image review.

Image Review

File:No. 91 Wing RAAF officers 1950 (AWM P01254.127).JPG AWM photograph. Copyright expired.
File:No. 36 Squadron Korea 1953 (AWM JK0840).jpg AWM photograph. Copyright expired.
File:No. 491 Sqn RAAF mechanics (AWM JK0999).JPG AWM photograph. Copyright expired.
File:F-51Ds 77 Sqn RAAF at Iwakuni c1950.jpg USAF photograph. PD in US.
All good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Hawkeye, sorry for belated reply... Just checking, does the "support" mean for images only or is it comprehensive?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive. Adding words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

I had already started on this one, so finishing it now.
"(of No. 90 (Composite) Wing in Malaya)": You may want to avoid the nested parens.
- Yes, I didn't like it much myself but I did want to make clear the parallel raison d'etre of No. 90 Wing -- perhaps I should replace the outer parens with long dashes, or just lose them entirely? Tks for review/copyedit! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Long dashes are generally my go-to if I need to replace parens, but I'd probably go with a comma here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.