Talk:No. 2 Squadron RCAF
Appearance
No. 2 Squadron RCAF has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 3, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:No. 2 Squadron RCAF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Will look at this one. —Ed!(talk) 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written:
- Dup links, dab links, copyvio and external links tools all show no problems.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Source spotchecks Refs 1, 3 and 10 all back up material in the article.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Not yet
- Day Bombing Squadron -- Any number on how many were assigned to the unit or how many pilots?
- Total figures for the entire CAF are stated in the source, but nothing more detailed. Kges1901 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Retroactively redesignated as No. 2 (Training) Squadron on 1 April, the squadron was reformed a year later[3] as an advanced training unit, but due to a lack of aircraft, funding, and personnel it only existed on paper.[9]" -- Was it to be organized at a certain location or base?
- That is not stated in the source, because it would seem that its organization was at a very rudimentary stage. Only two traiing bases were organized as units at this time. Kges1901 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Army co-operation squadron -- Might be useful to add a line to begin this section about the military buildup that prompted this unit's formation.
- Done. Kges1901 (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- "During 1937, the squadron was the most active RCAF unit" -- is there some number that can quantify this statement? Flights or other activity? "most active" needs some clarity.
- There is nothing to quantify this in the source, presumably the source states this because of how much they did. Kges1901 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Same section, is there any number of how many people or pilots in the unit? Or maybe any number of how many it trained? Or how many were trained service-wide in the time? Can be a footnote.
- Added a strength from the ORB in October 1939. Kges1901 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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 Three images tagged PD as appropriate.
- Other:
- On hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 16:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into each of these. Based on the outstanding issues being fixed, going to Pass the GAN now. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 20:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- GA-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- GA-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- Articles created or improved during WikiProject Canada's 10,000 Challenge
- All WikiProject Canada pages