Talk:563rd Rescue Group/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 15:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening statement
Grabbing this article for a GA review. I expect to get this review done by sometime next week. It may be done in stages, where I will post updates with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates intervals.

Comments
Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article appears to be in good general shape for GA, but there are issues to be addressed before passing that bar. It's an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit.

As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as a request rather than a suggestion.


 * General punctuation comment: I would add quite a few commas to clean up the punctuation of the article. I am happy to do that myself as part of this review - please just let me know if you are okay with that course of action. I will therefore not point out all instances of where commas are needed. Here is just the first instance as an example (comma added after "Coast"): "After training on the Gulf Coast, the squadron moved to the Southwest Pacific Theater...". Then there should be a comma after "1944" in that same sentence.
 * I tend to avoid commas, so feel free to any you believe are required. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Commas added. ✅ --Concertmusic (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Clarification request: Picture caption: The caption says "first HC-130J", yet the unit had HC-130Js in Southeast Asia, if I refer down to the "Aircraft" section. Please clarify what you mean by "first", or rephrase.
 * List of aircraft corrected. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Date clarification request: In the Infobox, under "Active", you list 1965, but in the lead, you list "activated again in 1966". I understand that the unit was activated in December 1965, but organized in January 1966 - but for the casual reader, this is confusing. Please standardize to use either 1965 or 1966 consistently. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting: Under "Motto", per WP:MoS on foreign terms, please change the Latin motto to this: Per Adversa ad Ereptionem. Through Adversity to the Rescue. The italics is per MoS, and the code will take care of the identification as Latin - no need to spell that out further. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: The insignia is labeled as "563d Rescue Group emblem (Approved 18 March 1968)" - at which time the unit was not the 563d. Please clarify that this insignia was approved for the 3d Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Group, or delete the date reference, so that there is no possibility of confusion. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * Clarification suggestion: 1st paragraph, last sentence: I would add "most recently" or something like it to clarify that this is the most recent or current instance of the unit's active status: "The group was most recently activated at Davis-Monthan in 2003 to command rescue units in the western United States." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikilink change request: In the 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, please change the wikilink from occupation to Occupation of Japan. My argument is that users will expect to be taken to the particular occupation being written about, not a definition of the term. In addition, they can find the link to the definition on the Occupation of Japan page. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mission

 * Move Media reference: Please move the Commons reference down to External Links - probably as the first item there, or even as a separate section, if desired - but it's badly out of place in this section.
 * Moved to See also section. ✅


 * Formatting request: Please unbold "563d Rescue Group". Per WP:MoS on Emphasis, bold should only be used in the Leads.  If you'd like to use italics to have it stand out, please feel free, but bold is discouraged, and italics are meant to be used sparingly.


 * Formatting request: In the listing of squadrons, please undo the wikilink of squadrons here: "two "Guardian Angel" squadrons ". If you want to wikilink squadrons, please do it on the first instance in the section. However, since you have already done so in the Lead, it is not necessary to do so at all in this section.  ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Linked here, rather than the two prior uses in the paragraph, to avoid consecutive wikilinks per WP:SEAOFBLUE. My reading of WP:DUPLINK is that a term can be linked in its first use after the Lead, apart from links in the Lead.  OTOH what's your thought on squadron as an "[e]veryday word[] understood by most readers in context" eliminating the need for the link? --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great argument for its placement. I do think the link is valid, as the casual reader is not likely to consider "squadron" as an everyday word. --Concertmusic (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference repair request: Reference 2 at the end of the section does not appear to support the information provided about the squadrons and their aircraft components. Please review and fix. Archived version of reference substituted. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Units

 * Reference repair request: In the first bullet, there are 2 references provided for the facts about the 48th Rescue Squadron, but none for the 58th. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that the mention of the 58th is supported by those 2 references - would you check once more? Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved external link from Nellis to support 58th Squadron. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: First bullet, first sentence: Please change "The" in front of 58th to "the".
 * Eliminated double "the The" ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting: 1st bullet, 1st sentence: I would wikilink "pararescuemen". That is certainly a term a casual reader will not be very familiar with.
 * Also added common name -- necessary? It's in the first sentence of the linked article. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I like it - but I always like more rather than less info. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting: 2nd bullet, 1st sentence: I would wikilink "Sikorsky HH-60G Pave Hawk".
 * Aircraft is linked in previous section. ❌ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct, and a poor suggestion. --Concertmusic (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: 2nd bullet: I don't have an issue with the appearance of copyvio on the text of the 2nd bullet - really all bullets - as the description provided by the fact sheets does not appear to carry a copyright per se, and there is little opportunity to phrase those facts differently. However, I will ask that you clarify the phrase "The squadron also conducts military operations other than war..." for the casual reader; maybe something like "military operations at other times than during war/combat...". While "during war" may well be the correct terminology, it is not clear to the non-military reader.
 * Upon further review, I don't think the phrase adds anything to the bullet, so I have eliminated it. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting: 4th bullet, 1st sentence: I would wikilink "HC-130J Combat King II".
 * Aircraft is linked in previous section. ❌ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: 4th bullet, 2nd sentence: I would love to see the term "airland" clarified. There appears to be no good wikilink, so maybe a quick clarification in parentheses?
 * Probably close to jargon, bullet rephrased to avoid the term. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting request: 5th bullet: Please unbold "563d Operations Support Squadron". Explanation above under "Mission". ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: 5th bullet, 2nd sentence: I would love to see the term "flying hour program management" clarified.
 * Rephrased. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Word War II

 * Picture change request: The OA-10 Catalina picture does not have a source or author. Please search Commons for a different picture, and change this one out. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Change plural to singular in "units": "As with most Army Air Forces rescue units, especially those deploying to the Pacific, the units was organized..." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: End of 2nd paragraph, beginning of 3rd paragraph: So the air echelon joins the ground echelon on 29 September 1944. However, the first combat mission is flown on 21 September 1944. How? I know this is not your doing, but the references are not in agreement. That either needs to be stated as such, or clarifies in some way.
 * Expanded sentence on squadron's initial dependence on Navy support to clarify. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification and CE: 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence: "During the last four months of the war, the squadron began to operate Boeing SB-17 Dumbos, which were equipped with...": Please change the "was" to "were", since it was plural B-17H. Also, maybe change the verb to "added" instead of "began to operate" - the current sentence could be interpreted that the B-17Hs replaced the Catalinas, when in fact they were added to the mix.
 * First change made, similar change to show that the squadron kept its Catalinas. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: Please add "the" in front of Catalinas: "This permitted the rescue of crews who were downed in seas that were too high for the Catalinas to land and pick them up." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Air Force appears to have moved the fact sheets used as references in this article, and the links to these references are now broken. It further appears that some of the actual fact sheets may have changed. I am therefore putting this review on hold until this issue has been addressed. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Archived links replaced broken links. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the fast action! I will un-hold the review and will continue to work on it - I am tied up for most of the day today, but expect to pick up real progress again next week. --Concertmusic (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Occupation of Japan

 * Clarification request: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Please clarify the "first" - first what - it appears to be on of the first occupation forces, but that could be stated more clearly : "The squadron was one of the first to move to Japan after VJ Day." ✅--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: It could be confusing too the casual reader ti understand that the squadron could be in Japan without its personnel. Maybe something like this: "Although the squadron became part of the occupation forces, its personnel, due to rapid demobilization of U.S. forces at the conclusion of the war, did not,..."
 * Different clarification made. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting request: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Please unbold "3d Rescue Squadron". Explanation above under "Mission". ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference correction request: The 1st instance of Reference 9 does not seem to support the sentence (4th sentence in the paragraph) it is currently referencing; it does support the previous sentence about the "Experience in the China Burma India Theater". The sentence about the addition of the R-6s and L-5s needs a different reference - Reference 1 may suffice. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction request: 2nd paragraph, last sentence: The sentence says that Air Rescue Service was formed in 1945, when both the linked article and the reference say that it was formed in 1946. Please review and correct.
 * Reworded to avoid unrelated complications. The 62d AAF Base Unit (Search and Rescue Service) was formed at Andrews Field on 5 December 1945 and assigned directly to Hq, AAF.  On 13 March 1946 it was transferred to Air Transport Command and renamed 62d AAF Base Unit (Headquarters, Air Rescue Service), so I've added the ATC reassignemnt for the 1946 date. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference correction request: The 2nd instance of Reference 9 does not seem to support the last sentence in that paragraph. That reference is to Tilford, P. 7, but the info about ARS is found on pages 8 and 9. I think a new reference to those pages is needed. In addition, the info found in those ages in Tilford does not seem to support the 2nd half of the last sentence. Please review and correct/add.
 * Tilford reference corrected. ✅  Second half of sentence is supported by Reference 1 (under assignments, the attachments to FEAF units starting in 1949). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Operations in Korea

 * Reference correction: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Reference 13: Page 9 of Tilford is referenced, but it appears that this sentence needs to be referenced by page 13 instead - please review and correct.
 * Agree with the addition of page 13 for rescue of aircrew, but I believe "Within hours of their arrivel, the H-5s were engaged in the medical evacuation of wounded soldiers from the battlefront" at the bottom of page 9 better supports that the evacuation mission was added soon after the helicopters' arrival. ✅.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting request: 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: Please unbold "3d Air Rescue Squadron". Explanation above under "Mission". ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Make "Squadron's" lower case: "The Squadron's Boeing SB-17 Dumbos and SC-47 Skytrains were used..." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: Please clarify "Gooneybirds" - I think it's another nickname for the SC-47s, but it's not clear, since 2 aircraft are mentioned before the use of the term.
 * It is, also clarified in next sentence that both models were replaced by the SB-29. ✅--Lineagegeek (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Squadron to group

 * Formatting request: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Please unbold "3d Air Rescue Group". Explanation above under "Mission". ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: 3rd paragraph: Please clarify that this statement applies to the Korean War, as that is open to interpretation for a very casual reader, based on current language: "The group was credited with rescuing almost 10,000 United Nations personnel..." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference clarification request: Reference 22: That reference appears to support the first part of the sentence, but not the item about the 37th Squadron. Please review and correct: Reference 1 could be used to support the 2nd part: "As Air Rescue Service shrank from a peak of 50 squadrons in 1954, the 37th Squadron was inactivated in May 1955."
 * Reference added. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference question: Is the document by Haulman for Reference 24 available and linkable?
 * It's not posted online. AFHRA has not posted these documents regularly since April 2014. (note the "What's new" section of Air Force Historical Research Agency).  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Buildup of rescue forces

 * Formatting request: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Please unbold "3d Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Group". Explanation above under "Mission". ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * CE: 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: Add "for" in front of Air Force, as shown: "The 37th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron was established at Da Nang and was responsible for rescue missions in North Vietnam, Laos and for Air Force efforts in the Gulf of Tonkin." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reference correction: It looks as though Reference 26 should be for pages 75-76, not just page 75. Please review and correct. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Improved equipment

 * CE: 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: Should that be "HH-3s"? "This deficiency was partially remedied by the addition of air refueling capability to the H-3s ."
 * All HH-3s are H-3s, but added to forestall confusion. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: 1st paragraph, last sentence: Add "to" as shown: "...and onload sufficient fuel to return to its home base. ✅  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * CE: 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence: Correct spelling: "(as it was called by crewmentbers )" ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reductions in rescue operations

 * Reference correction: It looks as though Reference 35 should be for page 127, not page 126. Please review and correct. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * CE: 3rd paragraph, 2nd-to-last sentence: Correct spelling - should be Nakhon: "The group moved with Seventh Air Force to Nakorn Phanom..."
 * See comment under Eagle Pull, etc. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

1975: Eagle Pull, Frequent Wind and the Mayaguez incident

 * Reference correction: It looks as though Reference 38 should be for page 140, not page 139. Please review and correct.
 * Since the citation supports the entire paragraph, both pages need to be included (placement on alert starts on p. 139). ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: Make "The" lower-case: "On 29 April, The two helicopters aboard Midway accompanied" ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: At the end of that sentence, I would rephrase: The word "Attaché's" looks strange with the accent and apostrophe, and I think "Compound" should be lower case: Here is my suggestion: "...evacuate people at the compound of the Defense Attaché."
 * I think this is a proper noun, but don't think the apostrophe s is needed, so I removed it. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference correction: It looks as though Reference 39 should be for pages 142-145, not page 142-144. Please review and correct. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Correct spelling - should be Nakhon: "...transport Security Policemen from Nakorn Phanom..."
 * There's more than one way to transliterate Thai, but, I've changed all to the same. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference correction: It looks as though Reference 40 should start with page 146 not page 147. Please review and correct.
 * Curse you, long paragraphs that begin on the last line of the previous page! ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: Add "were": "...and the group and the 40th Squadron were inactivated at the end of January 1976." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reactivation

 * Clarification suggestion: 1st sentence: I would lead off the sentence with something like " After the group's reactivation in 2003, the group has deployed airmen..." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification suggestion: 3rd sentence: Add Squadron after 48th: "48th Squadron recovery teams have saved..." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference correction: The link to Reference 52 is broken - similar to what had happened to Reference 3. Please review and correct.
 * Replaced with archived link ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross and Air Force Cross

 * Clarification request: This section needs a lead sentence or two. In its current form, it appears that these 3 men are the only decorated members of the group. An explanation of what is being listed after the lead would clarify the next 3 paragraphs.
 * Introductory paragraph added. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * CE: 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Correct typo: "...loading as many Marines on hiis HH-3's Stokes litter..." ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: Not sure that "ground" is needed here, unless there is another meaning to this sentence: "and forcing the pilot to head for an emergency landing ground ."
 * Changed "ground" to "field" to clarify that emergency landing was not made at the site of the helicopter crashes. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: 3rd paragraph, last sentence: I would rephrase - something like this: "Airman Hackney continued to tend to the wounded on board, even after temporarily losing consciousness after a bullet had struck his helmet ." Otherwise him being unconscious for a short while is not made clear. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Lineage

 * Reference correction: Please create an introductory sentence, maybe explaining what lineage is, or what is about to be listed, and place Reference 1 on that sentence. Currently it looks like the linage is un-referenced except for the last entry.
 * Footnote modified to explain coverage. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see where you have added the clarification on what lineage represents - but the placement of the reference is still incorrect. A collective reference for an entire list cannot be on an individual entry, but needs to be on a header or explanatory sentence. Please review this entry as well as the subsequent ones. --Concertmusic (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting request: Please unbold the unit names. Explanation above under "Mission". You could italicize them, however, for emphasis. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Assignments

 * Reference correction: Please create an introductory sentence, maybe explaining what follows, or what is about to be listed, and place Reference 1 on that sentence. Currently it looks like this section is un-referenced except for the last entry.
 * See response under lineage. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: It appears that the 2 rows in 1965 (Military Air Transport Service) and 1966 (Military Airlift Command), and the row for 2006 (23d Wing), are not supported by Reference 1. Please review and correct.
 * Reference added for 23d Wing (odd that an AFHRA fact sheet from 2008 omitted a reassignment in 2006. ✅  To avoid the use of primary aources, I'll have to use a "see" citation.  The USAF employed an overly complex organizational system during the 1960s.  Note that the group was "activated" in 1965, and because it was active was assigned.  However, during this period a unit had to be separately "organized", at which time it was assigned to whatever was to be its higher headquarters.  In the interim period (usually only a few days), the unit was assigned to its Major Command.  Complicating this was that on 1 January 1966, MAC replaced MATS, but didn't organize its subordinate units for another week.  In recent years, AFHRA has elected to ignore assignment data for the period units were active but unorganized, but earlier lineages, including Ravenstein and Endicott and older online lineages still include it.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Squadrons

 * Clarification request: It appears that the row about the 563d Maintenance Squadron is not supported by Reference 1. It is tagged with Note 9, but that note does not have a reference either. Please review and correct.
 * I can't find a good secondary source for the 563d Maintenance Sq (or the 763d, which was also a component), so retitled the section as operational squadrons and removed 563d Maintenance Sq. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Detachments

 * Clarification request: It appears that page 85 of Reference 10 states that Detachment 1 was around until March 1, 1953. ✅ Also, References 10 and 18 appears to disagree on formation date. Please review and correct.
 * Was thrashing about on wrong Det 1 for a while. Marion reference removed.  Although he gives an earlier date, he ultimately says the aircraft in Korea "soon" became Detachment F.  Remaining note edited to show that Tilford and Endicott do not give same date, although Endicott's date is "circa".  ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: Reference 36 does not appear to support the facts stated on the row about Detachment 2. Please review and correct.
 * It appears that I drew an incorrect reference from Tillman (that the Rescue Coordination Centers remained as group detachments until they were discontinued). Corrected and re-referenced.  ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Stations

 * Reference correction: Please create an introductory sentence, maybe explaining what follows, or what is about to be listed, and place Reference 1 on that sentence. Currently it looks like this section is un-referenced except for the last entry.
 * See response under lineage. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft

 * Reference correction: Please create an introductory sentence, maybe explaining what follows, or what is about to be listed, and place Reference 1 on that sentence. Currently it looks like this section is un-referenced except for the last entry.
 * See response under lineage. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: It appears that the split of the 3 H-130 versions, and the row for the UH-1N, are not supported by Reference 1. Please review and correct.

Awards and campaigns

 * Addition suggestion: I think you may be missing the 3rd DUC, from 1 May to 27 July 1953. Please review. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Addition suggestion: I think you may be missing the 3rd PUC, from 1 February 1969 to 30 April 1970. Please review. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference correction: On the 2nd table for Campaign Streamer, the dates are not supported by Reference 1. Please review and correct.
 * Added reference for campaign dates. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference correction: On the 2nd table for Campaign Streamer, please remove Reference 1 from the individual rows, and attach it instead to the header labeled "Notes", since that reference applies to every row and every note cell.
 * Didn't realize this would work. ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary
I have concluded my initial review. Based on the comment by the main author above, I will put the review on hold until the author returns, and has a chance to review and address the comments made above. I have also re-reviewed the changes made to date.

I sincerely hope that the detailed nature of the review is not seen as a negative, but as an honest attempt to make the article as good as it can be. I have learned a huge amount by reading and reviewing this article, and I appreciate the opportunity to have done so. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that the author has made significant progress on the review comments, and I have therefore put the article back under review. I will await the items not yet addressed, mostly on references, and will comment on a couple of the changes in the next 1-2 days. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The main author is making changes to respond to the comments found here; I will therefore put the review back on hold to await the completion of this work. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This article has received a great deal of attention from the main author, who has addressed all issues raised. It deserves to be a Good Article, and will be passed now. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Final edit request before passing
I just went over the above GA review notes, and am finding that there really is just one final item left, which needs to be done across all of the sections under Lineage. It has to do with the fact that you cannot have an overarching reference just on the final bulleted item in a bulleted list - as it then appears that just that row is being referenced. Therefore, if you could have a quick introductory sentence under the header of each section that describes the section, and then hang the reference off that sentence (inside the colon) - that will get this item taken care of.

The intro sentence could be as little as "Assignments of the 563d Rescue Group from 1944 to present:", and then have Reference 50 at the end of that sentence.

Specifically, for the Lineage section, you could either do the intro sentence, as described, and add Reference 50 at the end of that sentence, or you could add Reference 50 at the end of each of the 3 bullets.

For the Assignments sections, you need to have that intro sentence, and hang Reference 50 off it - the only other choice is to add the reference to each bullet, which is a mess. It is then also made clear that reference 50 is for the entire section, and Reference 51 is for just that last bullet.

Same for all of the other sections except Detachments, which is fine the way it is. If that can get done, I believe we can pass this article as a GA!

Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: I thought that I could help out and just as well make that change myself - which I have done. I would like your input on it, before I pass this article for GA, however. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: