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 GrahamColm 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service[edit]

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the acquisition and service history of the Royal Australian Air Force's small, but effective, fleet of six C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft. These aircraft began to enter service in 2006 and have provided a significant expansion of the RAAF's ability to move cargo across long distances. Somewhat unusually for a recent Australian defence acquisition project, the aircraft were delivered on time and on budget, and are well regarded throughout the military.

The article passed a GA review in April and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in June. I've since expanded and copy-edited it, and am hopeful that it also meets the FA critera. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Thomson titles should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made that change - thanks Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments: looks quite good. I made a couple of minor tweaks and have the following comments/observations:
  • everything looks referenced to me;
  • no issues with repeatlinks that I could see;
  • images look correctly licenced to me, but I could be wrong;
  • "the ADF deployment to East Timor in 1999" --> perhaps link to INTERFET?
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps add a link to Operation Slipper?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent: "Japanese Self Defence Force" v. "Japan Ground Self Defense Force" (spelling of Defence/Defense);
    • Standardised on the names used in Wikipedia articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "maneuverable" --> "manoeuvrable"?
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there issn or oclc numbers that could be added for the "Aero Australia" and "Australian Aviation" works? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks a lot for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Crisco 1492
• Images:

File:JGSDF truck being unloaded from a RAAF C-17.JPG - Fine

File:RAAF C-17 Afghanistan.jpg - Fine

File:RAF RAAF USAF C-17s 2007.jpg - Source points directly to the file itself rather than something which supports the US Military attribution; needs fixing

Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:RAAF (A41-206) C-17A Globemaster III on display at the 2013 Avalon Airshow.jpg - Fine, I've never known Bidgee to have issues with copyright vios

File:RAAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III CBR Gilbert.jpg - Fine, assuming OTRS is correct

• There's a lot of whitespace in your references section. Any way to avoid this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed I think Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still getting white space. I think it's the Commons box. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) currently - Information may date, suggest "as of"
  • I intend to actively maintain this article, so that should be OK. I try to avoid the somehwat clunky and maintaince-intensive 'as of' except where necessary. The RAAF should operate six C-17s for the next 25 or so years, and I'll update the other section when other capabilities come online. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• aggressively marketed - How
  • The source doesn't say (it refers only to the C-17 having "been the subject of strenuous marketing in Australia by Boeing"). I'd guess that this involved lobbying decision makers and taking out advertising in the defence media and at airports, but no source explains this. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Airframe - Just the frame itself, or a bare bones yet flight capable aircraft, or ...?
  • It was somewhere along the production line and had not yet been completed, so I think that 'airframe' is the appropriate term. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• on the 23rd of the month - Perhaps "the following week" or "seven days later"?
  • • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Australian Government ordered a further two C-17s in 2011. ... At the ceremony held to welcome A41-210, Smith announced that the government intended to order a further C-17. The $A160 million contract for this aircraft was signed in March 2012," - First sentence contradicts the last; the purchase was, formally, in 2012 by the looks of it
  • Good point: fixed (the government or Boeing could have technically backed out at any time until the contract was complete, though it was basically a done deal from the time it was first announced) Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• scheduled closure of Boeing's production line - might be worth noting that the C-17 line specifically is scheduled to close
  • Good point Nick-D (talk)
• fly-by-wire controls - Got a link?
  • Linked Nick-D (talk)
• That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Minister Smith stated - No need for the honorific
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Any comments on safety record?
  • Much like the C-130 article no sources identify any problems at all, or comment on there being a good safety record. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What was the fate of the aircraft which was being maintained at the time of the floods? Did it get damaged? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was moved onto high ground and not damaged: I've just added this. Thanks for your detailed comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose and images. Very good job, Nick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "one of a several": one of several
• "to evaluate the different options": to evaluate the options
• "Amberley was selected over Richmond as the base for the Globemasters as its runways and engineering facilities are better able to support large aircraft.": The change in tense is a judgment call ... it's fine if the decision was made very recently. 2006? Personally, I'd go with "were". - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• " a further C-17": What do you think of "another C-17"?
• "at this time the supplies were then": redundant
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dank: I've just made all the changes you've suggested. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Passed at GAN and supported at MilHist ACR. Rather than check changes since then I've reviewed and copyedited again from top to bottom; outstanding points:

• The Australian Government ordered a further two C-17s during 2011 and 2012. In February that year... -- Um, in February which year? I assume 2012 but suggest spelling it out...
  • Oops: I forget to update that when I made the tweak above. I've fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also in March 2011, Minister Smith announced that the Australian Government would probably provide C-17s to transport humanitarian supplies to Libya if the United Nations requested assistance. -- This leaves me wondering about what eventuated; if they weren't in fact needed, suggest saying so.
  • No C-17 was ever dispatched, but no source says this. I've tweaked 'announced' to 'stated' to tone this down. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structure, referencing and supporting materials all look good. Nick has pretty well written the book on how this sort of article should be put together, well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your review Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- very well-written, highly informative and exceptionally detailed (while making good use of summary style and thus not very lengthy either). It was fascinating to read about the C-17 procurement process, its introduction to Australian service, and its many missions to date. Interesting also to read specific details such as the equipment carried to Japan for earthquake relief, and even about how one of the C-17s fortunately escaped flooding! It seems the above comments, and earlier reviews + copy-edits have helped this article approach FA standard.

The only area of improvement I can see, from reading the article text only, is the last paragraph of the "Delivery" section which starts with, "The Globemasters have been credited with significantly increasing the RAAF's airlift capabilities." Perhaps it would help to more clearly specify who is crediting the C-17s with that--even though the subsequent sentence factoids make the first sentence self-evident, it might be more clear to say "Aviation journalists" or something. Moreover, the last two paragraphs of "Delivery" might not quite match the "Acquisition>Delivery" subheading. That section's paragraph #1 is on the timeline of the deliveries; paragraph #2 is on the additional orders; paragraph #3 is on the maintenance program; paragraph #4 is on capabilities. Those latter two paragraphs seem a bit out of scope of a "Delivery" title, which perhaps 1) could be tweaked--not sure if that title is preferred to remain untouched, or 2) be placed under a separate subheading. That's my impression from a simple read-through--perhaps one may have a different or better view on this area.

Otherwise, this is a great article, and I'm happy to support. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. I've tweaked that paragraph to be specific about who's praising the C-17s. In regards to the ordering, the last paragraph is about the effect the delivery of the aircraft has had, and was a way of working their statistics in. I agree that the para on maintenance doesn't sit entirely comfortably in this context, but as the aircraft are still pretty new to service there isn't much to say on the topic yet (see McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service#Maintenance and upgrades for what this could eventually become). I've tweaked the section heading to 'Delivery and sustainment' though to better reflect its content. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details, and those tweaks address my comments quite nicely! Again, great job on the article and I'm happy to support. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2013 (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. Graham Colm (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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