Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 410 Squadron RCAF/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:54, 20 August 2010.

No. 410 Squadron RCAF

 * Nominator(s): T artarus  talk 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all criteria and is an example of how the Air Force Unit Articles should look. T artarus talk 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - two dablinks (Squadron and Cold Lake), a number of dead external links (see here). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * the second paragraph in the 1946-1964 subsection of the Decorations section is uncited;
 * the entire 1946-1964 subsection of the Aircraft section is uncited;
 * in the Bibliography section, can you please check the details of the Williams source. Is "Queens University" the title? My search indicates that the ISBN listed is for a work called: "Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement: A View From the Inside". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per criterion three:
 * File:No. 410 Squadron RCAF Banner.jpg - Not low resolution (NFCC#3B). Rationale is not specific or detailed (NFCC#10C/WP:FURG) "To illustrate the banner as a description in words is not sufficient" is a function, not a purpose.  Of course an image illustrates; the rationale needs to explain why the illustration is necessary.
 * File:410 patch.jpg - Same issues as above. Why is this prose not adequate (NFCC#1)?  Terrible quality; not even the black line has been cropped out.  FAs must have "professional standards of ... presentation".
 * File:410squadron.jpg - Redundant, as emblem appears in File:No. 410 Squadron RCAF Banner.jpg (NFCC#3A). That one happens to have additional text of "air force" can be sufficiently explained in prose and is not a significant enough difference to warrant a second non-free image.
 * File:Distinguished Flying Cross and bar.jpg - Derivative work. What is the copyright status of the cross?  Who took the photo of the cross?  Was Robert Prummel merely the uploader, as the summary currently indicates ("professional" lighting, low resolution, no metadata)?
 * File:BluedevilsRCAF.jpg - What is the copyright status in the US?
 * File:Mosquito 600pix.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
 * See MOS:CAPTION regarding use of periods with nominal groups. Эlcobbola  talk 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - after examining the article more thoroughly, I have some further concerns, detailed below. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead should be no more than four paragraphs per WP:LEAD
 * One-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph subsections should generally be avoided
 * What is the official name of the squadron? You've got at least 3 options in the lead alone, and you do not use a consistent name in the text (the most frequent are "410 Squadron" and "No. 410 Squadron")
 * "what young people must endure" - can this be rephrased to avoid the appearance of editorialization?
 * Avoid linking the same term more than once, especially in close proximity
 * "De Havilland" -> "de Havilland". Also, why is there no "the" before this plane name when there is for the preceding name?
 * RAF Hunsdon or Hundson?
 * done-t Hunsdon MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest merging the "Bases" subsection with other Second World War sections to improve readability
 * "By the end of the war, 75 3⁄4 victories had been claimed...The squadron's victories included 75 3⁄4 destroyed, 2 probably destroyed, and 9 damaged" - either your math is faulty or you're using two different definitions of "victories"
 * Be sure to convert all measurements
 * "But the success was overshadowed by the allied invasion of Europe" - not a complete sentence
 * "and the Cougars destroyed twelve German bombers in all" - not a complete sentence. Also, why is "twelve" spelled out here when "14" is expressed numerically in the previous paragraph?
 * ""A" Flight dispersal" - what is this?
 * Be consistent in considering "crew" as a singular or plural noun
 * Why do you discuss August 1944 in the D-Day section, then return to July 1944 in "Immediately after D-Day"? Chronology is confused in many areas
 * "W/C Hiltz" - you don't explain this abbreviation until "Wartime commanders". There are several other abbreviations explained only after they appear
 * Who commanded the squadron from 1-18 August 1942?
 * I would recommend that either yourself or an experienced copy-editor go through the article and edit for clarity and grammar
 * Do.217 or Do 217?
 * "It runs one fighter pilot course every year, training approximately 20 pilots" - source?
 * "FOTEF enabled the integration of newly modernized CF-18 ECP-583 R2 aircraft into the Fighter Force" - source?
 * "its efforts were seen as integral" - were seen as integral by...?
 * Should mention both Thomas and Davey in shortened citations
 * Ref 37: page number(s)?
 * Becker and Brent, Dempsey, Green, Jenkins, Milberry, Page, Watkins, and Williams appear in Bibliography but not Notes
 * What makes History of War a reliable source?
 * AvroLand is a mirror of RCAF.com
 * Refs 12-14 go to "Missing or Outdated Page"
 * Ref 17 returns a error message. Also, the formatting should be consistent with Ref 16 and similar
 * Ref 40 should be formatted similarly to London Gazette refs
 * Why is the formatting for the Jenkins Bibliography entry so different from the others?
 * Title missing for Williams
 * Don't include the same sites in References and External links

Sources comments: Some of these may be covered by earlier reviewers' comments:-
 * Most of the books listed in the bibliography are not cited works. I can see no citations to Becker & Brent, Dempsey, Green, Jenkins, Milberry, Page, Watkins, or Williams. These books should be listed separately as Further reading, not as sources.
 * Ref 1: The source carries the message: "This is a private website and the author has no official connection with the RAF or the Ministry of Defence." It appears to be the work of an amateur historian and enthusiast; how can we be sure of its reliability?
 * Refs 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, all Royal Canadian Air Force, go to a "missing or outdated page" message. The RCAF has obviosly reorganised its website material; you need to find the current urls for these pages.
 * Ref 5 (RAF Commands): Dead link
 * Ref 17 (National Archive): link does not go directly to the required page. Instructions needed
 * Ref 18 (Canadian Forces Air Command): Page not found, message: "Our Web site has undergone extensive restructuring".
 * Ref 37 "Spick" need a page reference
 * Ref 39: Link seems to be to the Discovery Channel rather than to the cited material.
 * Ref 40: Vancouver Sun requires italics

Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment although the article has some good material the division of material between different subjects makes it hard to understand. I would suggest that the change in bases and the operations etc would be better all being in the operations centre and if needed the base changes could be summarised in a table. The order of the sections doesnt help readability with the aircraft section in the middle of what is really the history. The description of the aircraft could be in the relevant sections of the history/operations again with just a summary at the end about aircraft used. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry just another - some of the dates in the bases sections do not agree with the references. MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment the Avroland ref is cited 10 times, about 10% of all the citations. What makes it reliable? There is a typo in the first sentence and at least three typos/obvious grammar errors in the first paragraph.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Avroland, when reviewing the sources I gave Avroland the benefit of the doubt, partly because of the prestige of the name Avro in aircraft manufacturing circles. Looking at the site more closely, I am not so sure. It appears to be more of a tribute to A.V. Roe Canada than a repository of objective information, and is indeed described by its author as "a work of passion". The site has received awards, but I am unsure of the value of these. Perhaps other editors should consider this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From the bottom of the Avroland page: "The material above is mirrored from RCAF.com with the permission of Bob Hurst - who retains copyright to the material listed". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.