Talk:No. 3 Squadron RCAF/GA1
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Ed! in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 16:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written:
- Dup links, dab links and external links all show no problems. Copyvio is green.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Source spotchecks Refs 5, 10 and 18 all back up what's cited in the text.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Not yet
- Civil government and support squadron -- Any number on unit size or how large a squadron like this would typically have been?
- "The squadron was reformed a year later" -- Was it assigned a location?
- Consistency: One mention of "1000 hours" and "2,300 miles" in a graph. Just be consistent about comma usage in numerals.
- Convert template needed for aforementioned miles, whichever measure is most appropriate in this context.
- Bomber Squadron -- Same question on size (if there's a typical size for units like this at the time, can be a footnote)
- "A No. 3 (Bomber Reconnaissance) Squadron was ordered organized on 1 June 1943, but the order was swiftly cancelled." -- Was there context for this move by chance? A need at the time for more bomber units?
- Not yet
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is stable:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Pass Six images tagged as PD where appropriate.
- Other:
Looks good! Going to Pass for GA now. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 01:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)