Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 450 Squadron RAAF/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2015 [1].

No. 450 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) & AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first fighter squadron raised by Australia under the

History

• This seems to be something of a sandwich of material related to No. 450 on either side of a fair amount of background. Would it be feasible to bring the 450 material together?
  • Fair enough, have started with 450 and then moved onto EATS, but it could be the other way round if that seems like it would work better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East

• "the troopship Queen Elizabeth" granted, but would it be possible to note that she was a converted passenger liner?
  • Can you suggest how you'd put it, as it might be a mouthful to get "troopship" and "converted passenger liner" in there together? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Rommel" should probably be linked.
  • Nicely spotted, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

• "which dropped incendiary, anti-personnel and high explosive bombs, for more than an hour. " Not sure the final comma is really needed.
  • Agree, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Because the personnel camp had been placed some distance from the operations facilities, " this strikes me as unnecessarily jargony.
  • Had a go, let me know if you think it can be improved further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "became covered with seawater" in other words flooded. See above comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)
  • Agree, done -- tks for your review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 10:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:450SqnRAAFCrest.png: bit confused here. You've got an older, black-and-white version of this badge which is claimed as PD - when did the design change? Its overall appearance is quite similar. Also, source link is dead
  • Tks for reviewing the images, Nikki. Boy, that one didn't take long to go dead -- anyway, Rupert's updated with an archived link now. Re. design change (or more exactly going from rough design to 'official' design) I don't know, so I opted for for the usual FUR for crests on the latter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:No._450_Sqn_RAAF_Ops_Tent_1942.jpg: am I correct that this is the first publication of this image? If so, the given licensing is not correct. See Works created but not published. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I think the Australian PD notice is still correct because it was taken before 1955, so I guess you mean the issue is satisfying all three PD-1996 clauses? Correct, this would be the first publication, so what licensing would you suggest? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an interesting case in that the Australian notice is correct, but despite the fact that this would have been PD in Australia before the URAA date the American copyright is still problematic. The easiest solution would be to find out who holds the copyright. If we don't know who owns the copyright, or if the copyright holder is not you and did not die over 70 years ago, quite likely we can't use the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Well I own the photo through right of inheritance but I can't say with any certainty who took the photo, so though he might well have died 70+ years ago given the vicissitudes of war, we can't say that for certain. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • American copyright is not problematic. It was in the PD in Australia before 1996, so is PDF in the US under URAA. It meets all three of the URAA criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not the second, as it is a previously unpublished work - see
            Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Unpublished_works. Since this is its first publication, we can consider it to have been first published in the US after 2002, so URAA does not apply - life+70 would. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Well if we have to remove the picture so as not to hold up the review's progress, then so be it. OTOH if you have advice on how we might best be able to use it under a different licence them I'm all ears, otherwise I guess I'll just be donating it to the Australian War Memorial... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've removed the image for now at least to expedite things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  • I reviewed at ACR so am comfortable with its content and prose etc. Regardless, I've looked over the changes since then and couldn't see any errors or typos that might have crept in, and re-read the article in case I spotted anything I didn't see the first time.
  • Ref spotchecks:
    • I completed reference spot checks on Barnes, Eather, RAAF Historical Section, Gillison and Herington (both 1954 and 1963), as I have access to these in my collection. All references to these works seem to support the information as presented without any issues of close paraphrasing that I could see.
    • I added an archiveurl via the Wayback Machine for the AWM squadron page here [2] as the page that was used in 2013 when this article was first written now seems to have been reworked by the AWM and didn't include some of the information used anymore (specifically squadron casualties of 63 killed etc). The archive link provides a version of the page which does support this information now.
  • Otherwise fine in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many tks AC -- the AWM has changed the links to the official histories as well (must be about that time of year!) so updated those too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Probably worth footnoting the attribution of the crest design in that caption
  • Added a citation to the AWM website. Please let me know if I misunderstood. Thank you for taking a look. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Per
  WP:LAYOUT, Further reading should be its own level-2 section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Adjusted. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Nikki/Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]