Talk:Northern Area Command (RAAF)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 10:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ian, as usual, a nice tight article. I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"File:Catalina RAAF 11 Sqn in flight 1941.jpg" doesn't seem to match the source: AWM009453. I actually think that it is this one: AWM128018

Heh, can't trust anything these days... ;-) Tks, I've moved the offending file to a new name and updated the description, and added a completely new file that actually does represent 11 Sqn around the time it was under Northern Area.

Cheers, looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, "one of the geographically based commands raised by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during World War II". Would it be possible to say one of how many? For instance, "one of six geographically based commands raised by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during World War II."

I deliberately left it vague because there were different numbers of area commands at different times, and one of them didn't have "Area" in the name so...

It's only minor, and I can live with it as is, but I wonder if perhaps this would work: "was one of several geographically based commands"? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent: in the lead "Australia and Papua New Guinea"; in the body "Australia and New Guinea";

Well in the first para of the main body I was trying to use New Guinea in general terms and a bit later when I specify states I say Papua New Guinea...

missing closed bracket here: "..."keep open the shipping routes through the Coral, Arafura and Timor Seas; and..." (there should be one after Timor Seas, I think);

Sorry, I meant closed quotation mark...you got it anyway. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"On 15 January 1942, Northern Area Command was split into North-Western Area and North-Eastern Area" --> "On 15 January 1942, Northern Area Command was split into North-Western Area and North-Eastern Area Commands"? (and if so, the link should probably be moved up to here and I'd suggest a red link for North-Western Area Command);

Made it "Northern Area was split into North-Western Area and North-Eastern Area" to at least make it consistent -- "Area" and "Area Command" seem to have been interchangeable in meaning... ;-)

Is there anything available that discusses the number of sorties flown or losses experienced by the Command's units?

There are a few sorties/losses for individual units reported in the official history but a combination of factors, incl. the short-lived nature of this command organisation, and its relative remoteness from the unit/combat level, suggested to me that going into the weeds re. individual ops/losses was too much detail. Certainly if anyone reported along the lines of "During its brief existence, Northern Area undertook nn sorties and lost nn planes and personnel", I'd mention it but I don't think we'd find that anywhere... Happy to discuss of course.

Hmm, I guess because the article is short it seems like a little more could be said, but if it doesn't exist then it doesn't exist. Given that the command existed only briefly and its combat career was even more brief (Dec 41 to mid-Jan 42), one imagines that there probably weren't that many actual operations...but still if any operations stood out as notable for any reason, I think it would be a good idea to mention them. Would you mind taking a quick look at your sources, even if just to confirm that nothing warrants mention? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the RAAF was basically in a holding pattern during Northern Area's existence, so major ops and battles were effectively nil. I've combed the official history for any further mentions of the command as a whole, and added a bit more detail where feasible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"functionally based command-and-control system in 1953–54" --> would it be possible here to spell out a little more clearly what this means? It probably wouldn't need much. For instance, something like this might work: "...functionally based command-and-control system in 1953–54, which resulted in the establishment of ?, ? and ? Commands.";

Yes, that looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

slight inconsistency in presentation: compare Notes 4, 5, 8, and 9 to 11 (the name is not hyperlinked in the first few, but is in the last);

the Helson thesis probably should use the {{cite thesis}} template instead of {{cite book}}. For instance, {{Cite thesis |type=Masters |chapter= |title=The Forgotten Air Force: The Establishment and Employment of Australian Air Power in the North-Western Area, 1941–1945 |url=http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/38719 |last=Helson |first=Peter |year=1997 |publisher=[[Australian Defence Force Academy]] |accessdate=10 September 2013 |oclc=224054611}} AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I fooled myself by having used "series=Masters" in an earlier version... Many tks for review, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing, just interested in your opinion of Legacy as the final header -- I don't know if it's ideal but Post-war history didn't really make sense to me and Abandoned reactivation plans or some such sounded long-winded and almost OR. I also considered Aftermath... Anyway, I can live with Legacy but if you think we can do better, pls let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Legacy, although arguably "Post-war" might have also worked, IMO. Another option might be to ditch the third level headers altogether and just go for the single "History" header. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, as the WWII section is a little bit longer now, I might stick with the separate post-war/legacy section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian, your changes look good. I'm happy it meets the GA criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]