Wikipedia:Peer review/No. 410 Squadron RCAF/archive1

No. 410 Squadron RCAF

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, this has had a lot of time and effort expended into it, and now needs more work to reach the lofty goal of FA-Class. What needs to be done?

Thanks, T ARTARUS  talk 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66
I wouldn't call the V-2 a rocket bomb, that's for sure. And it's pretty unimportant that that same missile landed in England. Otherwise looks good although I'll have to take a closer look when I'm a little less frazzled. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney
Added a few links
 * when the unit was renowned for its skill and number of victories.- needs a cite
 * Change enemy to German
 * Change kills to victories
 * More cites needs Post D-Day section -
 * shot down two Do.217 aircraft in twenty minutes
 * Since D-Day the Cougars had destroyed twelve enemy bombers
 * still maintaining their schedule of nine sorties per night
 * During an operation that resulted in the thirteenth kill of the period, one aircraft crashed—its crew was unable to bail out


 * Battle of the Bulge and the end of the war section -
 * the Germans launched a surprise offensive in the Ardennes.
 * This was done using the Luftwaffe, which caught many squadrons off guard,
 * it was called upon to provide a special patrol of four aircraft as air cover for Armistice Day ceremonies being held in Paris

Thats all for now will return later --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wartime commanders section - does the one ref at the end of the paragraph cover all the changes ? it would be better to cite all changes in command
 * Post-Second World War section - the first two sentences need cites

AustralianRupert
I am not an expert on aviation articles at all, so I'm afraid I won't be much help. Jim appears to have covered most of the points I would raise, but I do have a couple more:


 * Please check the official rank name for the rank that you have abbreviated (F/O). At the start (in the lead) you state that it means Flight Officer, but later you appear to use Flying Officer. I think it should be Flying Officer the whole way through, but could be wrong. In Australia it is Flying Officer, but I don't know about the RCAF at all. Just strikes me as possibly wrong.
 * In the bibliography section some references use the template and others are manually written, leading to different formats. Consistency is always best, so I would choose one or the other and make them all the same. My suggestion is to use the cite book style (as it usually gets brought up at A class review anyway).
 * I suggest adding 'p.' in front of the page numbers. I don't know if it is required under the MOS, but it seems like a more standard system than author, #. Some people also use 'Author (Year), p. #'. The advantage of that is that is a little more user friendly, in my opinion at least.
 * I suggest moving the picture of the JU88 to the left, in order to balance the sequence of the images. Not necessarily a must, though, but sometimes gets mentioned at A class review.
 * Probably try to add a few more citations. I know you have lots already, but there are a few paragraphs where the majority of the citations are at the end, and there are chunks at the start of the paragraph that aren't cited. Even if it is the same source, at A class review they will usually ask you to put them in anyway.

Anyway, seems like a good article (without loading the term). Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)