The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article recounts the features and career of the 20 McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawks which were sold to the Royal Australian Navy in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The RAN operated these aircraft from its aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne until 1983, by which time ten of them had been destroyed as a result of accidents (killing two pilots). In the spirit of trans-Tasman friendship the survivors (and what was apparently an amazingly large supply of spare parts) were sold to the Royal New Zealand Air Force at a greatly reduced price in 1984, and were later upgraded to the RNZAF's highly capable 'Kahu' A-4 variant. Sadly two of the former Australian aircraft were destroyed in accidents during 2001, resulting in the death of a pilot. The article passed a GA nomination in mid-April, and has since been expanded and copy-edited. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I reviewed this article at GAN last month and have looked at the edits [1] made since then. Just a couple of minor issues:
• Australian Army is now overlinked
• the Grey 1998 (fn 15, 18-21) and Simms et al 2011 (fn 37, 43-44) citations don't point to the respective "Works consulted"

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your quick comments! I've de-linked the second use of Australian Army and fixed those citations. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Good to see this at ACR, never would've expected there'd be so many sources for it...

• As usual, let me know if I've misinterpreted anything while copyediting -- outstanding points:
  • Acquisition: Given there was a concern over Melbourne's size when it came to operating modern aircraft, probably worth mentioning that the Skyhawk was a very small package, so much so that it didn't even need wing-folding mechanisms -- I daresay your sources mention that somewhere but if not I can provide one from my library...
    • I've noted the concerns over the carrier's size in the first para of this section, but haven't seen anything which highlighted the Skyhawk's advantage in this regards - I'd appreciate it if you could add that in. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, just to confirm, it's from a general military aircraft book that doesn't refer specifically to the Australian situation, it'd simply be a bald statement re. the small size of the plane -- still all right? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds good. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done -- feel free to move, alter, or (at least in the case of the nickname!) discard as you see fit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operational history:
    • "During this period pilots became familiar with flying the type and practiced combat missions and air-to-air refuelling" -- Air-to-air refuelling from...? I know the Skyhawk was capable of "buddy" refuelling, i.e. Skyhawk-to-Skyhawk, so if that's whats meant I'd spell it out as readers might think only of dedicated tankers, which we didn't have in those days...
      • Ah, you go into this later on... Maybe it's better to drop the first mention of aerial refuelling and wait till you describe it in detail... Or perhaps I'm being too careful -- your call...
        • I've added this in and also added in that these were the only Australian aircraft capable of in-flight refueling of this era; a little bit of repetition is unavoidable with articles of this type, I thik. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The sale of Invincible to Australia was cancelled in mid-1982 following the Falklands War" -- Okay I was young at the time but I thought it was during the war, i.e. following the outbreak of the war; can you check?
      • The situation was a bit complex; Fraser wrote to Thatcher offering to release the UK from the contract on 1 June (while the war had about two weeks to run), but it wasn't until July that the UK confirmed that it intended to keep the ship, and wouldn't offer her to-be-completed sister ship Ark Royal as a replacement (until that time the RAN thought that the carrier would be substituted for Invincible). I've replaced the 'after' with 'as a result' given things were a bit less clear-cut (from reading between the lines it seems that the UK would have torn up the contract if Australia hadn't released them from it anyway). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, glad to hear my memory isn't completely clouded... Yes, there's that about the UK government, on the other hand I recall the cynics suggesting that the Australian government saw the Falklands as a heaven-sent opportunity to get out of an expensive purchase while looking magnanimous instead of cheap... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that's since been more or less confirmed. The Government was never all that enthusiastic about replacing the carrier, agreeing to do so mainly as Invincible was offered at a dirt cheap rate. Even then they never placed an order for any fixed-wing aircraft to operate from her, or even formally selected the Harrier for this role. The Fraser Government had pretty much decided to not go ahead with a replacement prior to the election (with the support of all the ADF leadership other than the Navy), and the incoming Hawke Government confirmed this by canning the project as one if its first actions. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Structure, referencing, coverage and supporting materials look good; the number of good pictures is a pleasant surprise, though I wonder how some of them were obtained, particularly the catapult shot, which looks to me like a still from film or video footage. Anyway, all in all, a great effort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for your comments Ian. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  • No dab links [2] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [3] (no action required).
  • Most images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [4] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are either PD or licensed and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [5] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
  • There may be a word missing here: "Ten of the twenty A-4Gs were lost during the type's service with the RAN. This gave the type a poor safety record, but high loss rate was at least partially attributable to the intrinsic dangers involved with operating aircraft from an aircraft carrier." Perhaps it should be: "Ten of the twenty A-4Gs were lost during the type's service with the RAN. This gave the type a poor safety record, but the high loss rate was at least partially attributable to the intrinsic dangers involved with operating aircraft from an aircraft carrier."
    • I've been bold and tweaked this because I felt the sentence could be improved a little anyway now I see it again... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Ian; I'd been struggling with that sentence. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise this article is highly developed and well written. No major issues that I can see. Anotherclown (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for your comments. I'll add the alt text now. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.