Wikipedia:Peer review/Civil Air Patrol/archive2

Civil Air Patrol
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working hard to clean up this article, add references, etc. I am opening this up for outside help on referencing, prose, and organization, in order to prepare the article for Featured Article candidacy.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the information looks good, well written, and well referenced but I would suggest adding a section on the history of the CAP, some well known pilots, and some well known and important missions, if not in detail at least a list of them with wiki links to existing articles. SyBer WoLff  15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The history of the CAP was taken out, because it was decided that it was lengthy enough to be deserving of its own article, History of the Civil Air Patrol. As for well known pilots and well known/important missions, there are none that aren't already included in the History page that are notable for inclusion, as far as I know.
 * Thank you for your comments. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! In that case everything looks pretty good to me. Great job on the article! SyBer WoLff  16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, clearly has had a lot of work done on it. Here are some suggestions for further improvement, especially looking ahead to FAC: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the whole article and nothing should be solely in the lead. My rule of thumb is that each header should be at least mentioned in the lead somehow. The motto (as one example, may be more) is not repeated in the body of the article.
 * As currently referenced, this would not pass FAC and would at least be put on hold at GAN. For example all four subsections of Activities are unreferenced, or the first three paragraphs of Organization, or direct quotes like the Cadet Oath and Cadet Honor Code. My rule of thumb is to have at least one inline reference at the end of each paragraph, and to cite all attributions and quotations (Cadet Oath), statistics (In addition to CAP's fleet of more than 530 aircraft, over 4,000 member-owned aircraft are made available for official tasking by CAP's volunteers should the need arise.), and extraordinary claims (The Civil Air Patrol owns and operates the world's largest fleet of single-engine aircraft, predominantly Cessna 172 Skyhawk and Cessna 182 Skylane aircraft.). See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Is CAP considered to be a branch of the US Federal Government - if so then the oath and honor code are not copyright. Otherwise (and Relationship between CAP and the Air Force seems to indicate it is not a governemtn agency) they are copyrighted and quoting all of them is covered by fair use - see WP:FAIR USE
 * Table of Contents is too long and there are many very short sections that could be combined (or perhaps expanded). For example, why not put the oath and honor code in one section? Or these tow sections, Region Cadet Leadership Schools and Non-Commissioned Officer Schools/Academies together, are only three sentences long.
 * Internet refs all need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed.
 * A possible concern at FAC will be the large number of references which are from the CAP itself.
 * There are several things that you've brought up there that are excellent suggestions. I do, however, have some comments (in order per your bullets).
 * Agree, will work on that.
 * Some sources are very difficult to find, and as such I would simply remove unsourceable information, except for the fact that the information presented is in many cases valuable enough for inclusion. So I'll work on finding sources.
 * I actually don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if being a federally funded non-profit organization that appears to be under the jurisdiction of DoD and the USAF actually makes one a branch of the federal government.
 * That requires major rewriting, I think, and a lot of work, but I'll see what I can do.
 * OK. I wasn't aware that there were references that still didn't have some of that information.
 * Here's the biggest problem. Much of this information is pretty much found only from within the Civil Air Patrol itself.  If I find two sources, one from CAP and one outside, I try to use whichever gives the most information.  Usually that's CAP itself as a source.  I don't know how to work through this problem.
 * Thank you for your time. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any sort of print history of the CAP? That could be very useful as a source. Or some sort of magazine profile? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any print histories are already cited, and the only magazine profile that I know of is the CAP's own Volunteer magazine. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made a number of changes to address your concerns. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a summary of all changes made since this peer review was opened. Thanks for all your feedback! Keep it coming! :) &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Second look by Ruhrfisch: Looks much improved. Here are a few things that still stick out. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reran the semi-automated peer review script and pasted it in below the first run (link at top above)
 * The lead should be several paragraphs long per WP:LEAD
 * Second paragraph of History is still unreferenced, as is "Assistance to other agencies:" and middle three paragraphs of "Aerospace Education" and of "Senior members". Also note that the motto (a direct quote) is unreferenced. Read this and check every paragraph needs a cite.
 * Per WP:Summary style I think the "Cadet Program" section should have a brief description of the Program, as should "Cadet members"
 * Per WP:MOS please do not set pixel widths beyond "thumb" for images so as to allow reader preferences to take over. Vertical images can have "vertical" to make them smaller.
 * If the sources are not available, then they are not available. You might want to ask at the Military History WikiProject for a more expert review or advice on this.
 * Done. How's it look?  I think I'm going to submit it for FAC now, and have any further improvements to the article be on the basis of reviewer comments. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  00:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)