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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2023 [1].

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about controlling body of the Royal Australian Air Force from 1921 to 1976. There's a wealth of data regarding the agency, although no single detailed history that I'm aware of (it scores a brief entry in the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History). For that reason I asked the Office of Air Force History for feedback on the organisation and depth of the article, their brief response being that it seemed to capture the subject "quite comprehensively". I've also put it through MilHist A-Class Review and, just recently, PR. Given the Air Board's responsibilities, a highly detailed history would amount to a de facto history of the service for that period, so I've tried to restrict the information to origins, purpose, changes in composition, major or representative decisions, and dissolution, as well as highlighting those times (inevitably during international conflict) when the board did not exercise complete control of its assets. The subject might sound a little dry but if you like your military history spiced with professional rivalries and inter-departmental intrigue, you should find enough to keep you interested... ;-) Thanks to Nick-D, SchroCat, JennyOz and Hawkeye7 for comments at the ACR and/or PR, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "senior Army figures, Sir Harry Chauvel and Sir Brudenell White" -> "Generals Sir Harry Chauvel and Sir Brudenell White
  • Will do.
• Mention the airbase construction squadrons?
  • To keep the article focussed I've only included stuff where the sources specifically mention the board (even though it made all major decisions). So if I find this is the case with the airfield construction sqns, we might do it.

    See Always First: The RAAF Airfield Construction Squadrons 1942-1974, p. 4, for the board's role, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Helicopters: That was another low point in WWII Army-RAAF cooperation. General Blamey asked for 25 helicopters in August 1943 but when the Army requested funding for them the Air Board protested that they were responsible for the acquisition of aircraft, even if they were operated by the Army. After a year, the RAAF cut the request to six Sikorsky R-5 helicopters in June 1944. It had to go through General MacArthur since they had to be purchased under Lend-Lease, and he approved it at once. The helicopters were not delivered before the war ended and the order was cancelled in October 1945. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me look into that further -- did you have a particular source?

    See Australian Army logistics 1943-1945, p. 318. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the Berlin Airlift be mentioned in Cold War commitments?
  • I've re-checked Stephens, Eather, and Coulthard-Clark's Operation Pelican and from them you'd think the Air Board had nothing to say re. the airlift. Given we're talking about control of assets I've added a sentence about the RAAF sending just crews that flew British planes under an RAF group. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephens, p. 201, but it says RAAF HQ. What you added is all I was suggesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention the Gloster Meteors but could you say a bit more about the move to jet aircraft?
  • Again not much specifically mentioning the board re. jets in general but George Jones' bio does relate initial disagreements between the board and Tommy White re. the Sabre, which I've decided fits under Cold War Commitments since the RAAF wanted Sabres then but got Meteors... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Korean War history goes into this controversy in detail. Bottom line was that Sabres were not available and Meteors were. (Something of a recurring theme in the RAAF, and one going on still.) Not worth it I think. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, we skip from the S-51 order on 1946 to the Hueys in Vietnam. Perhaps mention the School of Land/Air Warfare?
  • Ditto airfield construction sqns.

    See From the Past to the Future: The Australian Experience of Land/Air Operations, pp. 147-148 (p. 68 in the pdf)

    Yes I used that source re. the Hueys in 'nam but the School of Land/Air Warfare references don't seem to connect with the board, unless I missed it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In 1950 the RAAF accepted responsibility for acquiring and maintaining light aircraft for army Air Observation Post (AOP) duties, and established No 16 Air Operations Flight at RAAF Station Canberra, equipped with six Austers. The flight was fully supported by the Air Force, with RAAF executives and maintenance facilities, but the line pilots eventually were to come from the Army. The flight's two basic tasks were AOP cooperation and Army pilot training. However, forming the unit was one thing, doing the job properly another. According to the Army, No 16 Flight rarely met its commitments. Requests for AOP missions were only occasionally satisfied, the flight was 'hard pressed' to train the four pilots the Army needed annually, and its aircraft were obsolete. Air Force leaders seemed to treat those legitimate grievances with indifference. Following a review by the air staff in 1958 which confirmed the Auster's obsolescence and validated Army's stated peacetime requirement for 18 AOP aircraft, the Air Board refused to fund more than eight replacement Cessna 180s, even though the total cost for each aircraft, including spares, freight and handling, was a relatively trifling £13,750.13 Requests from the Army to supplement the Cessnas with helicopters were simply ignored.

    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, okay, we were talking about the School of Land/Air Warfare but if it's about the Army observation aircraft, that's fine -- did you have a particular place in the article you felt this would fit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would mention that the transfer of helicopters to the Army occurred in 1986.
  • Will do.
• Is there a reason why "branch" is capitalised in the last sentence?
  • Just per the quote.

    I thought that might be the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:012247Hewitt1942.jpg: as per the given tag this is missing detail on first publication as well as a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Nikki, this image was a late addition and I should've updated the tag to Crown Copyright per the others, will do. Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All sources are high quality
• fn 2: Suggest moving to the References. "Air Board of Administration" is on p. 18 (I have the first edition of the book.)
  • Well I did use the online version so prefer to keep to what I can access.
• fn 14: "Military Board" is on pp. 394-395
• fn 15: "Naval Board" is on p. 417
• fn 28 etc: Gillison, Odgers, Herington are formatted differently to the other books
  • You mean because I'm archiving the chapter links?
• fn 74: "WAAAF" is on pp. 677-678
• What order are books in when you have two by the same author?
  • Sorting using fields from left to right, i.e. author, year -- meaning I got the two Odgers wrong, will fix, tks.
• Spot checks: 7, 44, 54, 139 - okay
  • fn 75: Should be p. 99. Not seeing the bit about "opposition from within the RAAF"
    • Tks for spotting, corrected with add'l ref.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

• You use a serial comma in the lead for "personnel, supply, engineering, and finance", but then not for "operations, training, maintenance and acquisitions" in the Organisation section (followed by the use in and non-use throughout. I don't know which is the preferred or dominant one, but probably best to make these consistent throughout
  • Yeah, serial throughout, tks for picking up.

Organisation and responsibilities

• "responsibilities did allow him to exert" - > "responsibilities allowed him to exert"?
  • Okay.

Done to the start of Operations in the South West Pacific – more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Schro, look fwd to the rest... Cheers, 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Nope - that's the lot. It was a strong article at PR, so no more needed from me. This is a support on prose - not being any form of expert in the area, I have no idea on coverage etc, so will leave that to others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder. Hi Ian, have been watching changes since PR. Will pop back soon. JennyOz (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I had another read through and I only have a few very minor comments...

• image caption: RAAF UH-1 Iroquois in Vietnam... - full sentence? Full stop? I can't decide.
• image caption: Russell Offices, Canberra (pictured in 2006), home... - needs a geocomma after Canberra
  • Yeah, the first is not really a grammatical sentence with the establishing "RAAF UH-1 Iroquois in Vietnam;" so I thought perhaps no full stop was appropriate, and the second looks odd to me as "Russell Offices, Canberra, (pictured in 2006) home..." but maybe it is correct. Nikki, could we bother you for adjudication on these...?
• Odgers, George - move authorlink up to first work?
  • Of course.
• the same powers of command and disciple over male as well as female - is that 'discipline' or jargon?
  • No, just momentary brain-death on my part... ;-)

That's all I can find to ask about! JennyOz (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny, glad to see I haven't introduced too many errors since your very helpful input at PR...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with all thanks Ian. (I don't think your ping to Nikki would have worked because of gap between it and your signature but I am not concerned about the two captions.)

With nothing else to nitpick I am signing off on this fine asset! JennyOz (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Jenny! Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.