Talk:No. 2 Squadron RCAF/GA1

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

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.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Source spotchecks Refs 1, 3 and 10 all back up material in the article.
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass Three images tagged PD as appropriate.
 * 1) 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)