Talk:Red Tail Squadron/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

This 2010 promotion has very significant issues. There are large quantities of uncited text (a majority of the article), some of the information in the lead and the infobox (such as the six guiding principals of the organization) are not verified in the article body, and for an article about an organization, the article is rather out of date- no apparent updates in activities or finances, with the new events of the organization largely being from 2011 or before. This clearly needs substantial work to meet the modern GA standards. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woody - Any further update on this? The fixes you made improve the article a lot, and solve most of my sourcing concerns. Now it just needs brought a bit more up-to-date. I'm pretty busy in RL right now, so this isn't something I can tackle by myself without shelving some other stuff I've been working on, but if there's interest in trying to bring this back up, I'm willing to pull my weight in some fixing. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in responding, I've been busy IRL as well. I've had a quick google and there aren't very many RS that have any further up to date stuff. I don't have the inclination to go digging either. I'm glad the article is back on an even keel as it were but I don't have the time to bring it back to GA. Woody (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woody - Thanks for cleaning it up, it's much better. Any thoughts about if this should be closed as kept, and then send it through MILHIST A-Class rereview instead? Or do you think the latter part isn't necessary? It's still a bit out of date, but not perhaps horribly so. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it is on or around the GA criteria. I don't think an A-Class re-assessment is needed at this point unless a bit more work is put in to it with a view to going further ie FA. Looking at the criteria it is broad in coverage and adequately addresses the the main aspects of the topic. Looking for reliable sources and at the sources we do have, I don't think there is much missing from it. I don't see the need to list every programme the squadron are currently doing for example: We aren't their website (which is what someone had tried to turn it into). The main issue with the article was the promo edits that were made that wiped out the article as it was. Now that a more stable version has been restored I think it meets the criteria as it stands. Woody (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll close this once I get off work tonight. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]