Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 410 Squadron RCAF/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Closed as Not Promoted - Cam (Chat) 07:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 410 Squadron RCAF[edit]

I believe this article is of great quality and that it meets all prerequisites for A-Class. I have brought it up from a large paragraph and Stub class to where it is now. TARTARUS talk 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Comments

  • I can understand (and even quite like) the inclusion of the "Decorations" section, but is the addition of seven award citations really necessary? Brief details of the awards yes, but seven citations just seems like overkill.
  • An endash (–) is required between date ranges used in the article and page ranges used in citations.
    • Did my best. TARTARUS talk 04:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I obviously didn't explain it very well here; sorry about that. What I ment was that an endash is required between date ranges (eg. 10 January – 5 February 2009, etc); date formats used in citations (2009-01-14) use just normal dashes. Also, endashes should be placed between page ranges (eg. pp 10–12). See WP:ENDASH if you wish to find out more. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sake of consistancy, would it be possible to present the access dates used for the citations in the same format? Either in the style of: 2009-01-13 or 13 January 2009?
    •  Done TARTARUS talk 04:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still a number of inconsistancies in this area. It is preferred if they are all presented in the same format. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference details the last part of the footnotes only give a book. It needs more detail as it could be any of the hundreds of pages in the book, with a paragraph just linking to a book it is too mysterious. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a good article, but it needs some more work to reach A-class. My comments are:
    • I'm confused about when the squadron achieved its first kill - was this 6/7 Sept 1942 or 22 January 1943?
      • The first kill was on 6/7 Sept 1942, the first victory was on 22 January 1943.
        • Could you please explain what this distinction is in the article? It still seems to be the same thing to me.
          • Done
    • What's meant by "night readiness"?
      • The ability to fly at a moments notice at night time.
        • Please add this to the article.
          • Done
    • The claim that the squadron shot down '754' aircraft can't be right, and appears to be a result of a typo on the website to which it is sourced - it appears to actually be 75 and 3/4 victories.
      • Fixed this.
    • What did the squadron do between D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge and after the Battle of the Bulge - this section is only about two of the squadron's aces? Was it deployed to Europe, or did it remain in British bases?
      •  Doing...  Done
      • There's still no coverage of what the squadron did between 12 June and December 1944 and the coverage of period after the Battle of the Bulge is unsatisfactory - all that's needed here are descriptions of what the squadron's general role was. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems misleading to state that the squadron has been awarded multiple battle honours 'Since the beginning of World War II' given that the squadron wasn't formed until mid-1941 and none of the battle honours were awarded after 1945.
      •  Done
    • The 'Cold War and unification' section both repeats information in the earlier 'Post War' section and contradicts some of this information (eg, was the squadron reactivated in 1946 or 1948?)
      •  Done I hope I have clarified this.
    • How long has the squadron used its 'new name'?
      • Added this date.
      • I'd suggest that the wording be changed to 'the squadron was renamed' rather than 'The new name for No. 410 Squadron is'.
        • Complied with.
    • The 'Jetstream' section repeats material in the earlier 'Operational training' section and the tense is unclear - is the TV show currently filming, or has this been completed? The wording also reads like promotional material for the show.
      • I have tried to clarify, please tell me if there is more.
        • That's better, but there's still repetition ('selected to learn to fly one of the most advanced supersonic tactical fighter jets in the world: the $35 million CF-18 Hornet' is both redundant given that the article has already stated that this this is squadron's only role and questionable given that there are now much more modern aircraft than the CF-18 [F-22, Eurofighter, Rafale, etc]) and the use of 'Recently' is needlessly vague - why not state when the show was filmed and broadcast? Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done better now, at least I think so...
    • I think that only the first paragraph in the section on the Squadron's current aircraft is needed. The other two paras are about operations the squadron played no part in and best belong in the CF-18 article.
      •  Done
    • Is anything known about the Squadron's future aircraft? - is the squadron expected to be one of the units to be reequipped with F-35s?
      • Unknown at this time.
    • The article only covers the high-points of the squadron's existence- have there been any low-points? (being equipped with Defiants has to count as a bad thing) Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Defiants were covered, if any other points come into the light, I will of course place them into the article. TARTARUS talk 20:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please clear up the contradiction between being reformed on 1 Dec 46 or 1 Dec 48? Buckshot06(prof) 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "The first official sortie occurred on 23 July 1941 when Pilot Officer Lucas was flying his Defiant V1183." This comes as a bit of a non-sequiter after the bit on Normandy to VE Day, perhaps it could be moved to before that, and could we have Lucas' first name?
  • Fixed the order, but I couldn't find P/O Lucas' first name.
  • "The first successful contact however occurred on 6/7 September 1942, Beaufighter II T3428 from RAF Scorton with P/O R.R. Ferguson and P/O D. Creed (navigator)." The whole last clause makes no sense.
  • Are you referring to the brackets (parentheses)?
  • No, before the comma you say the date that the contact occurred, then you say a type of aircraft, where it was from, and who was flying it. I assume that you mean to say that was the aircraft that made the contact, but it would be better rephrased to something like "The first successful contact, however, was made on the night of 6/7 September 1942, by a Beaufighter..."
  • The prose seems very choppy on some places. Please get it copy-edited.
  • Will do!
  • Tying in with the above, it seems to be a bit jargony in some places: Vector is used a lot with no explanation of the use of the term in aviation, and there are lots of others.
  • See above comment.
  • It seems to overfocus on the activities of a couple of aces, rather than the unit as a whole.
  • I am doing this right now.
A couple issues here that I'd like to see resolved before I'll support. – Joe Nutter 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Two websites are reported as suspicious, please locate and if necessary replace/remove the links. One disambig link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry Tom, but which websites are suspicious? Also, what disambig? TARTARUS talk 00:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should see a toolbox up near the top of the page on the right hand side, I left this here so that you could check the links and ensure that everything was and continues to function correctly. If you click the external links in that tool box and look for a colored line then you can see for yourself which external links need looking at. Disambig is short for disambigious links, you can find a button for that in the toolbox I left. "Disambig links" are links that point to general pages rather than specific pages, and lately have been grounds for opposition at FAC since they create more work for the readers. Best to find the disambig links now and ifx them so they redirect to the exact page you had in mind rather than a page that leaves readers wondering where you were trying to point them. Clicking the disambig links button in the toolbox will show you which terms you have linked in the article that go to disambig pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for clearing that up for me. Also, I have done as you asked. TARTARUS talk 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments:
    • You need to have a consistent date style in the article. In the prose, most dates are styled "day month year", though there are some that are "month day, year". In the references, the retrieval dates are mostly in the "YYYY-MM-DD", some with hyphens and some with en-dashes. (I'm not sure which (or whether) citation templates are used, but all have the capability to display "day month year" for dates of retrieval.) Whatever the style, it needs to be consistent throughout.
      • Done.
        • Actually it looks like some of the retrieval dates (access dates) are now in the format "DD-MM-YYYY" in addition to others that remain in the "YYYY-MM-DD" format, neither of which match the style used in the body of the article. Here are some examples from the version I'm looking at right now:
          • Example date format from prose: The first official sortie occurred on 23 July 1941 when Pilot Officer Lucas was flying his Defiant V1183.
          • Note 4: Retrieved on 15-12-2008.
          • Note 5: Retrieved on 2008-12-15.
        • — Bellhalla (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) I think I got it this time in the format day, month, year. TARTARUS talk 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how to get across my point more clearly, but in the current version Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 37 all have an all-numeric retrieval date of the format [day (in numerals]-[month (in numerals)]-[year (in numerals)] (note that all are separated by hyphens). This all-numeric style does not match with the date style used in the article, which is [date (in numerals)] [month (spelled out as a word)] [year (in numerals)] (note that all are separated by spaces). — Bellhalla (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, how could I have been so blind? This time they should all be correct. TARTARUS talk 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parts of the section "Squadron badge and motto" appear to be verbatim from the source. Is Canadian Forces material public domain or is it under copyright?
      • Sorry about that, I have fixed it.
    • The lead paragraph (a single sentence) should be combined with the following paragraph. After doing that, the lead should still be expanded by at least another paragraph. Given the amount of WWII coverage in the article, that service probably merits more than two sentences in the lead.
      • Expanded a bit.
    • MOS:IMAGE recommends against placing in image directly below a secondary heading, as is done in the "Postwar" section. (If the image is shifted to the right, the problem is eliminated.) Also, the images are mostly at the bottom of the article, leaving large expanses of unbroken text. While it's logical to have pictures of the aircraft next to the section where they are discussed, it could also be useful/interesting to have, say, the de Havilland Mosquito image in the WWII section.
      • I have added some images, but it is hard to follow MOS:IMAGE with the way the sections are setup.
        • The number of images is fine as is. It was the spacing of them that was off. (Take a look at another A-Class candidate Battle of Aachen to see an example of how images are spaced and staggered left and right down the page so as not to have large, unbroken blocks of text.) However, the image immediately under the "Postwar" heading still needs to be moved. Change the word "left" to "right" in the link and it will be fine. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The table in the section "Unit awards" should probably not be centered. It looks very strange on a wide-ish screen. Also, was there a particular reason for not using "class=wikitable" for the table? (Using that, instead of the formatting used, gives the table a look more consistent with most other tables on Wikipedia.)
      • Changed it.
    • Television show titles (as opposed to episode titles) should be in italics.
      • Done.
        • In the lead and in the "Jetstream" section you have the TV show name in italics and quotes. You need to lose the quotes. Also, the "Jetstream" section header itself should be in italics. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOS:NUM, times of day should be expressed with a colon (Example from the article: At 0100 hours the first of four…). You probably also don't need the word hours after a 24-hour time. Also, per MOS:NUM, large numbers (five-digit and above) should have commas in them (Example from the article: …and accumulated 28150 hours of flight time.). Though commas are not necessary for four-digit numbers, in articles with lots of dates—like this one—they help to easily distinguish figures from years at a glance.
      • Done. Also, doesn't international convention state that we now use spaces instead of comma's because in French a comma means the same as a period in English?
        • My reading of the MOS page says that spaces can be used in a scientific context, but to use commas as digit separators elsewhere. (It is the English Wikipedia, right?) — Bellhalla (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't arguing, however that is just what I was taught in class, but I do go to a bilingual school in a bilingual country, so... TARTARUS talk 04:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't think you were arguing :) It looks like the time example referenced above has not been changed. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have gone through it again and fixed what I saw.
                • I did fix the first one, I checked it three times; other numbers have been fixed as well. TARTARUS talk 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of abbreviations not explained or linked: F/O, F/L, W/O, P/O, etc. (I assume these are ranks?) Can they not be spelled out?
    • In the paragraph beginning F/L Currie and F/O Rose were the first…, who are F/L Currie and F/O Rose? They don't appear to have been introduced earlier in the article.
      • Introduced and meanings are incorporated.
        • Are their first names not known? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Names are very hard to find as they were not recorded (military is a last name sort of place). TARTARUS talk 05:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the article needs a good copy-edit to help tighten up the prose. Right now there are sections where there is more of a colloquial tone rather than an encyclopedic one. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/No._410_Squadron_RCAF/archive1&oldid=1136426317"