Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 450 Squadron 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 by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. 450 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) & AustralianRupert (talk)

No. 450 Squadron RAAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/No. 450 Squadron RAAF/archive1

This was the first of the

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • One of the images lacks
    Alt Text
    (File:450 Sqn (AWM 024694).jpg) so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • One external link reports as dead (Kierath, Reginald Victor (info) [ww2roll.gov.au])
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information, with one minor exception:
    • File:450 Squadron RAAF Kittyhawks in Malta 1943 AWM SUK11288.jpg - probably needs a PD US tag
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • No duplicate link to be removed per
    WP:REPEATLINK
    (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • "...Sergeant Shaw, who had been responsible for the unit's first aerial victory...", Shaw claiming the unit's first victory is already covered.
    • Yeah, to be honest the repetition was deliberate so people wouldn't have to try and recall why this short, unremarkable name (apologies to all the Shaws out there!) was important but hopefully we can expect them to remember back to the previous paragraph... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of some airfield names. Consider "LG.207/LG 'Y' (Qassassin" vs "LG.142\143/Gambut Satellite") i.e. back and forward slashes. Also lowercase "g" here: "Lg.148/Sidi Azeiz Airfield".
    • Although I didn't put these in, I think there was method in the backward/forward slash madness given the arrangement of Gambut Main, so going all forward slashes may be too simple. I'll double-check things and see how we might better present it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than these very few cmts from me, this article is in very good shape in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, thanks for the review. I think I've dealt with all of these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tks AC, and AR for actions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I reviewed this article at GAN, and the subsequent changes look good. Just a few points:

• "all Kittyhawk units began to operate in the fighter-bomber role" - given that earlier in the paragraph it's stated that No. 450 Squadron and the other units in its wing's role was "escorting daylight raids by Douglas Boston bombers, and ground-attack missions in support of the Eighth Army", this seems unnecessary repetition (especially the "began" - were the squadrons tasked exclusively with ground attack missions during this period?)
  • Tks, tweaked. The point was supposed to be that ground attack became their prime -- though not exclusive -- focus and fighter duties secondary, rather than the reverse as had previously been the case.
• In regards to "In mid-1945, the squadron became the second RAAF unit, after No. 3 Squadron, to receive North American P-51 Mustangs, albeit too late to see action during the war", does this mean that the squadron was off the front line converting to the new aircraft at the end of the war? Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, Units of the RAAF doesn't mention 450 Sqn receiving Mustangs so pending any further info from Barnes I've tweaked using info from the sqn page at AWM. I'm happy with it now if you and Rupert are. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, the AWM's collection database has lots of photos of 3 Sqn with P-51B Mustangs from 1944, but none of 450 Sqn with the type Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work with this article Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for the review, Nick, and the tweaks, Ian. I've moved the Barnes ref because it doesn't cover the point about the Mustangs...unfortunately neither of my sources mention whether the unit was off the front line or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Rupert, I think then that no source we have supports the 'second unit to re-equip with Mustangs' claim (even though it's probably correct) so removed it. The AWM ref says it was only 'preparing' to convert to Mustangs when the war ended, so I think we can say the question of being taken out of the front line to re-equip doesn't arise, because the war had ended before the conversion happened. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.