Talk:No. 2 Squadron RCAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]