Talk:No. 5 Service Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a nice, tight article. It is well referenced, has good coverage, is well written, it is stable, and the images seem appropriately licenced.
• On the technical side there are no dabs, the external links all work, there are no duplicate links and the images have alt text.
• The Earwig tool reports no copyright violations.
• Beyond these points, I have a few minor comments/suggestions:

• Is there scope to mention the notable commanders in the body of the article?

• Considered that but there wasn't anything more I could say about Lachal (in fact to be honest I don't anything that makes him particularly notable; when I put him in here I assumed that the person who created his stub would expand it, and that hasn't occurred). All we can say about Walters is that he came from command of No. 1 Wing in Darwin and went quickly from No. 5 SFTS to No. 72 Wing because the commander of the last-mentioned (Charles Eaton) had disagreements with superior headquarters and was replaced. I mean it's interesting and I don't mind putting it in, as long as you don't think it would overbalance this article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• G'day, hmm, given that, I'd probably leave it out. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I notice that you introduce the RAAF abbreviation in the lead, but don't do the same with EATS or SFTS, although there is the opportunity to do so;

• Per agreement at No. 1 OTU's GAN...? :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• in the lead "No. 5 Service Flying Training School (No. 5 SFTS) was a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) flight training unit of World War II." Perhaps this might sound better as "No. 5 Service Flying Training School (No. 5 SFTS) was a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) flight training unit that existed during World War II."?

• Not sure about "existed", how does "operated" sound? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, that sounds better. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• in the lead, I think the second sentence might work better if it came after the third. For instance, "No. 5 SFTS one of eight Service Flying Training Schools established by the RAAF to train aircrew during the war. Its role was to provide intermediate and advanced flying training to new pilots as part of Australia's contribution to the Empire Air Training Scheme."

• Makes sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• "eight Service Flying Training Schools (SFTS), and Central Flying School (CFS)" --> "eight Service Flying Training Schools (SFTS), and the Central Flying School (CFS)"?

• Heh, one habit the RAAF has (and which I've no doubt picked up from personal experience as an air force brat and, later, a contractor) is referring to unnumbered units as though they had numbers, so they'd no more say "the Central Flying School" than they'd say "the No. 5 Service Flying Training School", however authoritative sources also use the definite article for CFS and other such units so fair enough...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• "demand for aircrew rose and fell" --> "demand for aircrew fluctuated"?

• Very good, thank you (unless of course the source said that and I was paraphrasing)... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• just checking, but is this a typo: "Ulex Ewart"? Perhaps "Alex Ewart"?

• Heh, I had to check too, but it's it's correct! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Flying Officer Bill Newton, later to be awarded..." --> "Flying Officer Bill Newton, who was later awarded..."?

• Works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• "declined during 1945 and, by November, its aircraft were being readied for storage". Perhaps a short clause about why this happened for lay readers. For instance, perhaps something like this, "...declined during 1945 and, as part of the demobilisation process at the conclusion of the war, in November its aircraft were readied for storage..."? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• As long as I can source it properly, no prob. Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good, happy to pass. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks again -- as ever, the article's definitely better for your review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)