Talk:Exercise Vigilant Eagle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This article seems pretty thin to me. I think more should be added on the context of the exercises, along with sections on the units and equipment employed as well as logistics (i.e., which bases were used, etc.)
 * As a minor point, the US and Canadian air forces are not "air forces of the North American Aerospace Defense Command"
 * File:VigEagleRusCAN.jpg - this photo has an incorrect license. It's credited to a member of DAirPA, which is the Director Air Public Affairs for the RCAF. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you there? If you do not respond soon, may have to fail the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , see here, LavaBaron is out of town at the moment but should be back next week. We'll handle the review then. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the clarification. Display name 99 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

, it looks like you're back - can you take a look at the review? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy - article updated to incorporate recommendations. LavaBaron (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I found this article gives a bit more details on the cancelled 2014 exercises. I don't know if airforce-technology.com has been vetted at all for reliability, but presumably that information is available elsewhere if we decide the site is not good enough.
 * The citation for the cancelled 2014 exercises mentions that Japan would have taken part for the first time - this should be included as well.
 * This article gives some details on the 2013 exercises.
 * Probably worth a distinguish hatnote with Operation Vigilant Eagle (and vice versa over there). Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy - I made these changes. On the airforce-technology reference, I found KTUU-TV as the original source of the report and cited it instead so there would be not future question as to the RS. LavaBaron (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)