Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Central Flying School 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Flying School RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

For a slight change of pace, my first unit A-Class nom... CFS has had two incarnations, firstly as Australia's original military aviation unit in 1913–19, when it trained cadet pilots to "wings" standard, and secondly from 1940 to the present day, when its focus changed to training flying instructors. During World War II it was a key part of the Empire Air Training Scheme; afterwards it became, in official RAAF historian Alan Stephens' words, "the Air Force's most important peacetime unit", not just for instructor training but as the service's arbiter of pure flying standards. On the public relations front, the "Roulettes" aerobatic team is made up of CFS instructors. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work Ian. I have a few comments through

Is "training facility" the right phrase? I'd suggest "training unit" or equivalent
- "Facility" sounds more like infrastructure? Fair enough...
"Williams, who became the first to graduate, recalled the school as "a ragtime show"... from memory, Molkentin notes that CFS was quite well set up by the end of the war, and you should note this.
- Heh, I should charge you rent for the amount of time you spend loitering in my brain... ;-) I was considering doing just that at one stage and didn't bother in the end -- now I shall.
Do we know what the problem with Tamworth was? It's meant to have some of the best weather for flying anywhere in Australia (which is why the ADF initial pilot training school is currently located there). I think that other RAAF units were located at Tamworth, which is presumably what the issue was. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be, but I can only go by what Units says -- haven't seen any other reason given for the move. I could try another trawl of Trove (now that's not bad alliteration!) but I think I caught about everything that was useful last time I did that... Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Searched specifically for everything referring to CFS and Tamworth and/or Parkes (which was where it relocated from Tamworth) but none even mention the move, let alone the reason... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: excellent standard as per usual Ian. I couldn't find much to pick fault with and only made a couple of very minor tweaks. I have one concern, though:

Image discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Overall, the images seem to be appropriately licenced to me, except "File:P00448.086VampireT35.jpg". The licence on this might be an issue, unfortunately. It appears to be listed as copyrighted on the AWM site, here: [1]. Is there some way around this issue? Could it be replaced with a fair use rationale, maybe, or some other image not within copyright? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, not the first time that's happened. It was marked out of copyright when I uploaded it years ago, now they've obviously had another look at it. This affects other RAAF articles, including at least one FA -- let me consider solutions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I've gone through AWM and found a few other shots of Vampire trainers. There's another T35 marked PD (intriguingly, also from 1956!) so I don't think we can get away with fair use for P00448.086. It's static, however, so I don't like it as much even though the T35 was the main training model. There's also a T33 trainer marked PD in almost exactly the same style as P00448.086, so I'm inclined to use it instead. It's undated though, so the licensing may have to be PD-Author rather than PD-Australia. Comments welcome -- think I'll ping Nikki for a reality check as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've just created a [De Havilland Vampire in Australian service on Commons which has quite a few clearly free photos. [2] and [3] for instance. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Tks Nick, I don't think the Mk30 was a training model so not the best for this article. The T33 fits the category so that's a possibility although, like the other T35 one I found at AWM, it's a more prosaic shot than the one in flight that AWM has. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Original image doesn't appear to qualify for PD-Australia, especially as AWM claims otherwise. I'm not sure about the possible replacement you link, Ian, as far as PD-author - AWM isn't the author, these images are donated, so was copyright donated or just the images? Not sure how that works in Australia. Given that it's tagged as a WWII image, you still might be able to claim PD-Australia for those based on age, but without an exact date it's not guaranteed. There might be some possibilities in the category Nick links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Heh, I think that WWII category AWM has used is simply not right, tempting as it to use it as evidence of a pre-1955 date for the image. I'll email them and see if they can add an approximate date to the shot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi all, received the following communique from AWM: "128863 is in the public domain because it was taken more than 50 years ago by, or commissioned by a government organisation" -- which of course makes sense. They haven't been able to offer the precise date it was taken but have narrowed it down to the 1950s, and altered the date range on the image accordingly. My intention at this stage is to upload to WP as PD-Australia since we now have a date range and statement of authorship that clearly puts it under the pre-1969 government clause (E) of that licence, then use it in place of the image that started this whole thread. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Done per prev post -- if/when this is resolved to everyone's satisfaction I might collapse the thread. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my concern has been addressed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, appreciated. I agree with your edits, they've definitely improved the expression. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent work as usual, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for looking it over, Nate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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