Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2016.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 7, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
June 4, 2013	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
August 4, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Military history: Aviation / South Pacific

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.

B-class

I haven't passed this for B-class because it is TOO DETAILED and needs slimming down a lot. There is no need to include every flight in detail only NOTABLE ones, a sentence or so apiece. Discuss below--Petebutt (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article obviously doesn't discuss every flight, and the level of detail accorded to the use of the aircraft in responding to natural disasters (which I presume is your concern here) is in line with that in the sources I've consulted, which in turn means that they're the notable flights (no-one has written much about the routine use of these aircraft to ferry supplies from Australia to the Middle East or the transport ADF equipment during training tasks). What is your suggestion for restructuring this material? Note that I'm planning on fleshing the article out further with details of how the aircraft are maintained and what their capabilities are and nominating it for GA status. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pete. I've assessed this as B class - IMO there is nothing in the B class criteria against being detailed. Category B2 is possibly the only criteria that I can see might be the source of your concern, although I note that it states: "B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." This article does that as far as I can see. Of course if you disagree with my assessment I am happy to revert and discuss further. IRT the overall issue expressed that the article is too long I note that it is only just over 17,000 b which seems fairly small in comparision to some of the articles we seem to be churning out now days. I also note that all points are cited to reliable sources and seem to give a broad overview of the topic, while those areas of detail relate to the more notable uses of the aircraft (as covered in the sources) in its relatively short period in-service. As such I didn't see any issues with undue weight. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 07:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from anything else, 86 Wing is next on my list of wing articles to bring up to GA standard, so I'll see if there's anything to pinch from this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- No dablink or EL issues.

Structure -- Logical and in line with similar articles.

Content/detail -- Looks comprehensive but might be worth adding something about the improvement in payload/range/speed/survivability offered by the C-17 over the C-130s -- I have a comparison in McPhedran's Air Force, as well as some comments by pilots on its capabilities (which might even make neat quote boxes if you're interested) but of course you might have similar in your own sources.

I've just added a para on the aircraft's capabilities, especially in comparison to the C-130. I didn't think to consult McPhedran (and don't own a copy), so if there's some extra stuff to add from it that would be excellent. I've also added some material on how they're actually tasked - the source is a bit vague unfortunately (it alludes to the Army having a preference for booking C-17s for tasks which C-130s could complete more cheaply). Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added line + quote box, see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose -- Performed my usual light copyedit, let me know if any issues.

Supporting materials -- Infobox looks okay, image licensing likewise.

Referencing -- Souces look reliable and formatting seems sound.

Summary -- Nice addition to to your aircraft in Australian service articles, Nick, and very timely. I really noticed the lack of a similar one for the Hercs while I was expanding 86 Wing lately -- are you interested...?! 86 Wing's history includes much of it but because the wing was disbanded between 1964 and 1987 it leaves out everything about its tasking re. South East Asia, Cyclone Tracy, etc, etc. Anyway, that's another story... I'll of course be passing this but just like to get your response to the content/detail query first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested in developing an article on the RAAF's use of C-130s, but have never seen a reference which provides an overview of this ; it's obviously a very big topic! Are you aware of anything which could be used? Thanks also for your review and copy edit. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, coincidentally the second-latest Pathfinder at APDC celebrates 50+ years of Herc service in the RAAF, but focuses heavily on its capabilities, as opposed to actual service -- useful info for an Australian service article but not a template, methinks. Presumably Stewart Wilson has included it in one of his aircraft in Australian service books, which though probably a bit old would likely give the best overview to work from. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check it out. I didn't think that Wilson had covered the C-130, but he did. The book's from 1990! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is old -- was kinda hoping (without having looked at all) that it'd at least been from the early 2000s so it'd take in the conversion to C-130J. Still, it should provide the template -- let me post some thoughts to you on your talk page in a bit so we can wrap this up. Passing as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, I've made a start on a C-130 article at User:Nick-D/Drafts3, though it currently consists of only three sentences! (I stumbled on a reference explaining the mysterious EC-130H Jane's World Air Air Forces credited the RAAF with). Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New source

Note to self: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-australian-airlift-comes-of-age-381854/ Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

I suggest we change to {{sfn}} style for referencing as it links between short footnotes and citations for a better user experience. 04:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change all of them, please do. But changing just the one is a bit confusing ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. They are all changed now. Clare. (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409035842/http://airforce.gov.au/Technology/Aircraft/C-17A_Globemaster/?RAAF-h0719xJ%2FeXjMFO8eLULT2D7U+C9pXnFB to http://www.airforce.gov.au/Technology/Aircraft/C-17A_Globemaster/?RAAF-h0719xJ%2FeXjMFO8eLULT2D7U+C9pXnFB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

The article is in a maintenance category for harv ref errors, but I can't figure out what it is. Can some context/as of date be added (throughout?) for ... The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) operates eight Boeing C-17 Globemaster III large transport aircraft ... Marking Satisfactory, unwatch, no need to get back to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]