Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RAF Lossiemouth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

RAF Lossiemouth

Nominator(s): Thx811 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has been significantly expanded over the last year to include a comprehensive history of the station and it current operations. I have tried to focus on the station itself and its facilities rather than the units that were based there, as they are covered by their own articles, although both are obviously intrinsically linked. I have followed the structure of other articles on military airfields but hope that if considered acceptable that this article on what is one of the RAF's major stations could be used as an example to help expand other articles on UK military airfields.Thx811 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~regretfully oppose~~ There are some issues here that are too substantial to allow upgrading to A-Class at this time or which could be reasonably resolved during an A review, namely:

sections of uncited text - excluding the table and list of section commanders (both of which are largely uncited), by my count, there are six substantial factual assertions that have no sources
some close paraphrasing - not much, but a few short passages could be restructured [1] Done Thx811 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
maintenance tag on the article

Having said all this, I think this is a wonderful and comprehensive article that is right on the verge of WP:GAN and, from there, could be improved to A-class with only a modicum of effort. It is, mostly, well-sourced to RS, well-written, well-organized, and well-imaged. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice and encouragement. The table of squadrons largely comes from Jim Hughes airfield focus book, with the exception of those entries post 1993. Would it be better to have a in-line citation for each entry or would it be better to have them only for those which don't come from the book (which is referenced at the top of the table)? In terms of the paraphrasing I think the original article was largely a copy of the RAF's own information on the airfield - those paragraphs identified must be leftovers from then. I'll make the recommended changes and resubmit as a nomination for good article - thanks again. Thx811 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page range you could provide for the Hughes book? If so, and if it isn't too large a range, the current solution seems okay to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

DoneThx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here (as an admin) that DarjeelingTea has subsequently been blocked indefinitely as a sock. I'm sure that Thx811 has addressed their comments in good faith. This oppose should probably be discounted on that basis, because we don't enable socks and their activities, whatever the intent. I've stricken their "regretful oppose" on that basis. If a Milhist coord believes I've done the wrong thing here, feel free to revert. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions: G'day, thanks for your efforts. I have a few suggestions for possible improvements, but echo the comment above that it would be best to take this through GA, before coming back to A-class. Anyway, good luck with improving the article further: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"of vegetation & buildings" --> "of vegetation and buildings" Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
". Group Captain P.E Maitland AFC MVO was the...": post noms are unnecessary here Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"2 (AC) Squadron building and flight-line" --> "No. 2 (AC) Squadron building and flight-line" Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"An Avro Shackleton AEW2 of 8 Squadron" --> "An Avro Shackleton AEW2 of No. 8 Squadron" Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"HMS Fulmar (1946–1972)": add italics for "Fulmar" Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"a week long operation to test" --> "a week-long operation to test" Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In order to allow for the early retiral of..." --> "In order to allow for the early retirement of..." Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A SEPECAT Jaguar T4 of 16(R) Squadron landing at Lossiemouth --> "A SEPECAT Jaguar T4 of No. 16(R) Squadron landing at Lossiemouth" Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the referencing style seems a little inconsistent: compare Ref # 1 & 33 with #2 etc;
"KINEDDAR, THE CAPTAIN'S HOUSE (FORMER DRAINIE MANSE), GARDEN WALLS AND GATE-PIERS: decaps per MOS:ALLCAPS Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
same as above for "FORMER DRAINIE MANSE, KINNEDDAR" Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this needs referencing: "As of December 2016 construction has yet to commence." Done - addressed through updating of LDP section Thx811 (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this needs referencing: "Hangar K20 which was located beside the southern boundary of the airfield was demolished in 2010. One L-type at the north of the airfield and a Bellman type (hangar 5) were demolished in the 2000s."

When comparing the WW2 airfield map in Jim Hughes book on Lossiemouth with current satellite images its evident that above is the case. However I can't find any published sources to use as references. I'll remove for the time being and add the statement to the talk page in case anyone else can help. Thx811 (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this needs referencing: "No. 5 Force Protection Wing HQ provides operational planning and command & control to the two field squadrons attached to the wing, No. 51 Squadron RAF Regiment and No. 2622 (Highland) Squadron's (RAuxAF), whose purpose is to protect RAF bases at home and abroad from ground attack." Done Thx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this needs referencing: "The RAF have also provided photo opportunities for aviation enthusiasts during exercises such as Joint Warrior." Done Thx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the References there are quite a few "harvn" errors, which the clickable links don't link to the long citations in the Bibliography. If you instal this script, it helps more easily identify these errors: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
watch out for overlinking. The duplicate link checker indicates the following duplicate links: No. 44 Squadron RAF, Supermarine Seafire, Fairey Firefly, Hawker Hunter, No. 15 Squadron RAF, RAF Honington, RAF Marham, No. 6 Squadron RAF, RAF Valley, Quick Reaction Alert, Done Thx811 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It is now the only operational RAF station in Scotland" I never trust "now" or "currently" or such. Better make it "As of 2017, it is ..." or even "As of July 2017" ... Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Done Thx811 (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

I am closing this review as a fail due to the lack of comments over the extended period it has been open. The nominator should not be disheartened at the low interest at this time and I suggest renominating the article again in the near future. Perhaps consider a GAN prior to bringing the article back to ACR as that process can provide useful feedback for improving the article. Regards. Zawed (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.