Talk:Basic Military Qualification

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Technology / Canadian / North America

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Tristin Hopper (3 April 2017). "The navy asks that you get your sailor-kissing facts straight: Highlights from government Wikipedia edits". National Post. Retrieved 3 April 2017. As one might expect, Canada's Department of National Defence usually edits Wikipedia to make incredibly pedantic corrections. ... And in an article about basic training, it was made very clear that Canadian Forces members eat "dinner and supper," not "lunch and dinner." {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help); no-break space character in |title= at position 100 (help)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/basic-military-qualification

Edits

I suggest the "Course Content" section be removed for WP:EDITORIAL and WP:Relevance. The External Links provide ample resources for further investigation of this topic. Any objections to its removal? --IseeEwe (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]