Talk:No. 3 Squadron RCAF/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Ed! in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 16:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Dup links, dab links and external links all show no problems. Copyvio is green.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Source spotchecks Refs 5, 10 and 18 all back up what's cited in the text.
  3. 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?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass No problems there.
  5. It is stable:
    Pass No problems there.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass Six images tagged as PD where appropriate.
  7. Other:
    On hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 16:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
    @Kges1901: Just checking to see where you are on this one! —Ed!(talk) 00:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks good! Going to Pass for GA now. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 01:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply