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)

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

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

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Dup links, dab links, copyvio and external links tools all show no problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Source spotchecks Refs 1, 3 and 10 all back up material in the article.

3. 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)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Three images tagged PD as appropriate.

7. 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)