Talk:No. 486 Squadron RAAF

No. 486 Squadron RAAF has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 1, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No. 486 Squadron RAAF article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from No. 486 Squadron RAAF appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 January 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1958, No. 486 Squadron became responsible for maintaining the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, the first turboprop aircraft operated by the RAAF?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 486 Squadron RAAF.

Wikipedia

Military history: Aviation / South Pacific / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal No. 486 Squadron RAAF is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:No. 486 Squadron RAAF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Comments[edit]

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)[reply]
    - Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Still going to add this but may take a quick break first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - Tks Nick -- all done now I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: