- 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 Ian Rose 00:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick and I have a long history of editing and reviewing each other's articles, but this is the first time we've actively collaborated. The idea developed spontaneously as I was expanding No. 86 Wing (long-time operator of the C-130) and Nick was working on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service, which I reviewed at GAN. It occurred to us that a) there was an article on the C-130s' Australian service crying out to be written and b) we were just the blokes to write it, the subject and format being fresh in our minds! Anyway, this is the story of the RAAF's greatest workhorse, with a 50-year-plus history through four different models. It's recently been through GAN and MilHist A-Class Review, so have at it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks also from me. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Retrolord
Support Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 06:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The type" In the second sentence of the intro, why does it say that instead of "The aircraft" or something simpler?
- "Type" is common aviation terminology and was used as a variation on "aircraft", which we employed at the end of the previous sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " replacing its venerable" That seems extraodinarily subjective. Would you mind pointing out where in the article that is referenced?
- "Venerable" is used simply in the sense of "old" but I don't particularly mind losing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The second sentence of the "Initial selection and purchase" section covers this: the Dakotas were a long-serving and highly successful type within the RAAF. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Nick, clean forgotten we mentioned that -- so I think we're covered for both the "old" and "respected" meanings of "venerable"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "quantum leap" Could this perhaps be replaced with something more 'encyclopedic'? It just seems a bit out of place in a wikipedia FA
- Not sure how it's unencyclopedic. Elsewhere the source uses the term "quantum advance" to describe a similar leap forward in fighter technology; in this case we're talking three generations of capability in one bound. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " In 1986, No. 37 Squadron transported the Popemobiles during John Paul II's tour of Australia; its other unusual cargoes have included a Murray Grey stud bull presented to the Chinese Government in 1973, kangaroos and sheep for Malaysia, and archaeological exhibits from China" I have a problem with this sentence. It really does seem like a list of strange things that have at one time been in a C-130, and reads like a trivia section. Is it really relevant to the article to mention this?
- Well I think it just illustrates the wide variety of cargo these planes have carried. However, I don't have a particular issue losing it unless Nick has another opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Published histories of the type's RAAF service consistently note these unusual missions, so I favour their inclusion. Bear in mind that carrying non-standard loads is a relatively complex task as it requires the aircrew to carefully consider how the plane should be loaded to ensure safety and good performance (this is largely done for them when carrying standard loads due to previous experience with that kind of cargo, or loading plans drawn up by the RAAF's air transport development units). Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " In April 2013 the Australian Government offered to sell five of the C-130Hs as well as spare parts and simulators to Indonesia at below their market value" Given we have mentioned this deal, was there any outcome?
- I'll have to leave this one to Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated slightly: the Indonesian Government has agreed to the deal, and the specifics are being negotiated. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just some thoughts to consider ★★RetroLord★★ 06:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm happy now that those points have been addressed. Oppose changed to Support. Have a nice day, ★★RetroLord★★ 06:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from John
I agree that quantum was not the right word; among those in the know it means the smallest possible advance in something. Other words to watch on a FA include "additionally", "in addition", and "a number of". All in all it looks like a great article and I think I will support. --John (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for copyedit, John. I have no prob with any of the text changes except the "ones" seems to me a slightly unencyclopedic substitution for the second mention of "panels" in the same sentence -- I think in this case repetition of the word might be better. Also I think the detail in several of the images justified a somewhat larger size than normal (for consistency, we made it all of them) -- granted the fixed px size is not the best way to do it but we could use the upright parameter that allows for proportional sizing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN26: shouldn't be italicized, and what's a "stap"?
- Damn, I thought I caught all those article refs -- tks.
- FN79, 89: title should be italicized
- FN107: is there something missing, or something extra?
- Be consistent in how you format short cites with more than one author. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (USGov, US Navy, own work, OTRS, PD-Australia, 1 fair-use). Sources and authors provided.
Prose comments from Crisco 1492
- Mostly nitpicks, by the looks of it. Very well done. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
- Some addressed comments moved to talk
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
