Talk:No. 3 Squadron RCAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 16:45, 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 and external links all show no problems. Copyvio is green.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Source spotchecks Refs 5, 10 and 18 all back up what's cited in the text.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Not yet
 * Civil government and support squadron -- Any number on unit size or how large a squadron like this would typically have been?
 * Information is scant on this period and I haven't been able to find any figures on the establishment. Kges1901 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The squadron was reformed a year later" -- Was it assigned a location?
 * No, there appears to not have been much thought given to it other than assigning a number. Kges1901 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Consistency: One mention of "1000 hours" and "2,300 miles" in a graph. Just be consistent about comma usage in numerals.
 * Made consistent. Kges1901 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Convert template needed for aforementioned miles, whichever measure is most appropriate in this context.
 * Added convert temp. Used miles because this was pre-metric in Commonwealth countries. Kges1901 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bomber Squadron -- Same question on size (if there's a typical size for units like this at the time, can be a footnote)
 * Added a personnel strength figure. Kges1901 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "A No. 3 (Bomber Reconnaissance) Squadron was ordered organized on 1 June 1943, but the order was swiftly cancelled." -- Was there context for this move by chance? A need at the time for more bomber units?
 * Added details. Kges1901 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 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 Six images tagged as PD where appropriate.
 * 1) Other:
 * On hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 16:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just checking to see where you are on this one! —Ed!(talk) 00:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good! Going to Pass for GA now. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 01:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)