Talk:No. 460 Squadron RAAF
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No. 460 Squadron RAAF article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Untitled
editAny idea who lasted the longest in this crew, even throughout the war? Enlil Ninlil 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Do you mean members of the crew who are still living or what? Fire e23 05:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Focus of article
editMy head hurts when trying to reconcile the first line of this article, the part that shows up as a hyperlink, the precious first words that appear if you search Google, against the main body of this article i.e. the remaining 99.8%
Line 1; No. 460 Squadron is a Royal Australian Air Force intelligence unit active within the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation (DIGO).
We are talking cutting edge state-of-the-art computer technology and digital analysis (I'm guessing). And the reader will see these words accompanied by an old black & white image of a Lancaster bomber & crew.
Have we really got our priorities right here? Do we absolutely have to start with the detail describing what the unit is today, with an image that is so totally at odds with that? Is it the image that should change, or the first line of text?