Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eastern Area Command (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2018 [1].

---

Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay it's not the most exciting air force subject I've brought to FAC, but it is an important part of RAAF history, particularly as the ancestor of the service's only extant command-level formation, Air Command. Established as one of the RAAF's area commands during World War II, Eastern Area became a key formation following the end of hostilities, when it gained control of most of the service's operational units. It was therefore well-placed to evolve into Home Command (later Operational Command and now Air Command) when the Air Force switched from a geographically based organisation to one based on function. Thanks in advance for your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Not much to do, and it was easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks Dan, I just want to check the details re. your last edit -- I suspect the source was slightly ambiguous so my wording was too, but will try and refine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Support It all looks good. Just a couple of comments.

• When was the Territory of New Guinea added to one of the areas? Given the Japanese threat, quite early?

• Pretty much. The sources clearly mention the Territory of Papua as coming under Northern Area Command when it was raised in May 1941 but I don't think the Territory of New Guinea came under an area until the eastern part of Northern Area was split into North-Eastern Area Command (NEA) in January 1942. The area commands controlled RAAF bases within their boundaries, so if there was no base in a state or territory when the area command was raised then the state or territory wasn't mentioned, even though it might be part of the operational zone covered by aircraft from the area. When Northern Area was raised, I believe the only RAAF base in New Guinea was at Port Moresby, thus Papua was clearly covered. By the time NEA was raised, the RAAF had aircraft at Rabaul, and those were directed by NEA Headquarters. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The Federal government retired Air Marshal Jones in 1952 " That's an odd way of stating it. Was it a political decision?

• The top RAAF appointments didn't have fixed terms in those days as they do now, so you could say that every Chief's tenure was at the whim of the Federal Government. In this case Jones had been in the role a decade and the PM and Air Minister made a conscious decision to remove him. In other words he didn't fall, he was pushed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks for taking a look, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Nick-D

Great work as usual Ian. I have the following comments:

• The lead seems a bit short for the length of the article: I'd suggest adding a second para
  • Tks Nick, I do usually include a longer lead in articles at this level but felt this one hit the key notes (even added a little more detail just before the nom) -- did you have some specific points in mind?
    • I'd suggest starting with a para on its wartime duties (expanding on the convoy escort role perhaps) and a second para with a bit more information on its post-war role. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Had a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Bit of a long shot, but do we know where Eastern Command's HQ in Edgecliff was located? (a lot of these higher level HQs were in notable buildings of various types which the military took over for the duration)
  • The exact address per the Ops Record Book is 6 Wentworth St, but I haven't seen it ascribed any special significance.
    • Fair enough. Google Maps shows that it's a vast mansion in Point Piper: nice work by whoever persuaded the owner to let the RAAF use it! Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'd suggest updating the urls for Gillison and Odgers to the current urls at the AWM's website - when I contacted the AWM to complain about them breaking all the links to the official histories, the person who responded said that the new URLs are intended to be permanent, so the archive links shouldn't be necessary
  • Ah-ha, the reason I'd left them as archive links was that when the AWM revamped the website entirely, they made it so you could only view the PDFs by downloading them to your device. I felt this was unfriendly for the average user and told them so, recommending they go back to making them open as a new tab in your browser (which could still be downloaded if desired). I see now they've finally acted on that suggestion so yes, I'll be happy to change the links when I get the chance.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• I know it's one of my obsessions, but I think that the article under-states the extent and importance of Eastern Area Command's anti-submarine patrols. It would have been responsible for covering the main convoy routes between Melbourne and Brisbane, which involved a huge number of patrols between mid 1942 and 1944, which were effectively front-line duties. The crisis of mid-1943 (when three extra ASW squadrons were hurriedly raised from training units) is covered in the official histories. This thesis is also useful.
  • Heh, we've all got our obsessions or we wouldn't be here...! Reviewing Odgers and Wilson, there might be a few more details I could add to the article but I didn't get the impression from them that mid-1943 was a "crisis", although I may have missed something. If there's anything in particular you want to point me to, I'm happy to look at working it in.
    • Chapter 9 of Odgers and chapter 8 of Stevens note that the ASW forces were under considerable pressure throughout early 1943 (Stevens refers to this period as "The ASW Crisis"). See in particular page 140 of Odgers were he notes that three reserve squadrons had to be activated: these included No. 66 and No. 71 Squadron in Eastern Area's zone. Both authors also describe other measures put in place over the year to try to improve the situation (for instance, routing as many training and transit flights over the sea as possible) and the mixed results of the expanded ASW efforts. The current material in the article doesn't really capture this. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • See what you think now, Nick -- I may rejig the paragraphs slightly once we're done to even them up, this is just to get the info in for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I've taken the liberty of adding more. Despite some very useful technically-focused works and the official history, there isn't a truly satisfactory account of the ASW campaign in Australian waters, which constrains the ability to cover Eastern Area's operational role. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
          • I think your additions have further improved the article, tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• On that topic, an order of battle from 1942 or 1943 would be useful, as I presume that this is when the command reached its peak strength. It might not be possible to source though.
  • I could add an OOB from April 1943 but it'd be exactly the same list (and source) of units I give in para four of the WWII section. Do you think we should repeat it?
    • I'd suggest either doing that, or merging the 1944 OOB into the text like the 1943 one is. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Done the former -- probably useful to be able to compare the two snapshots like that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Could more also be added on the command's air defence role? I think this involved stationing squadrons at Sydney and Brisbane for much of 1942.
  • Well the 1943 and '44 OOBs mention squadrons in Bankstown and Lowood, but not in an air defence role. Are you aware of any others that came under Eastern Area?
    • There was an American squadron operating out of Bankstown in the air defence role at the time of the attack on Sydney. I suspect it wasn't formally part of Eastern Area. There might not actually be much more to say: this topic is somewhat under-covered in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Do any sources discuss the impact of the arrival of the British Pacific Fleet on this command? It took over a few RAAF bases in the area.
  • Hadn't noticed it but can take another look.
    • I think that Eastern Area had to move out of the airfields around Nowra and possibly Brisbane. Probably not a major impact by this time. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I searched for references to the BPF in Odgers, Wilson and Stevens but couldn't spot anything clearly stating RAAF bases were taken over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I once read a scathing account of the huge scale of the BPF's imposts on Australia, but can't remember what it was. The economic volumes of the official history grumble about it. But out of scope here! Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your comments, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I think I've addressed everything now -- let me know your thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. It's good to see articles on these kinds of topics in such excellent shape. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks for all your help Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Trying to do my bit for source reviewing, as we are all exhorted to do, I have cunningly chosen this pleasingly concise article, and having read, most carefully, the excellent new guidelines, and followed them to the best of my ability I can find nothing at all to quibble at in the sourcing or citation here. All sources appear reliable, and all are consistently and comprehensibly cited. – Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And, while I'm here, support

for a clear, authoritative, evidently comprehensive, and wholly readable article. – Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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