Wikipedia:Peer review/Vandenberg Air Force Base/archive1

Vandenberg Air Force Base
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is need of cleanup and I would like to get it to WP:GA status.

Thanks, Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges

 * "with a mission of placing satellites into polar orbit from the West Coast using expendable boosters" Perhaps "Whose purpose is placing satellites into polar orbit from the West Coast using expendable boosters"


 * "The base is named in honor of former Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg." Perhaps an expansion, such as why it was named after him.


 * " Operations involve dozens of federal and commercial interests." Needs expansion.


 * "In 1941 the United States Army sought more and better training centers for the rapid development of its armored and infantry forces." This could be taken to mean either in order to allow for rapid development, or else in order to start the rapid development.


 * The title "Known United States Army Units at Camp Cooke", seems a little weird unless it means concurrently, perhaps "Known United States Army Units That Were Stationed at Camp Cooke"


 * " In January 1956, a select committee was formed that examined more than 200 potential sites before Camp Cooke was chosen," Is the name of the committee known?


 * "The initial mission of Cooke AFB was to serve both as a training site for" training site sounds a bit weird, maybe "served as a base for the 30th space wing to train on"

End. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  22:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Going back to "The base is named in honor of former Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg." the lead makes it appear as if it were always called this, perhaps the piece talking about its renaming should be moved into the lead.

First look by Lineagegeek

 * Adding a bibliography would permit shorter citations for books. It would also highlight the lack of page references in these books.
 * What does the date of redesignation of units have to do with the base? Also if you are going to list some squadrons as "major' units it would seem that all squadrons should be listed.  Limit major units to wings and above.
 * Demographics. If 2010 is listed, why not 1990, 1980, etc.?  Delete this and note changes between 2000 and 2010.
 * Dead links need to be repaired. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Query: This review appears to have reached a natural conclusion as there have been no further comments since 10 Oct 16 (three months). Do you wish for this review to be closed and archived? The bot that normally archives peer reviews is currently down, but I can undertake the steps manually. Please let me know your wishes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry I've been busy on other projects... Feel free to archive it. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've archived it now. Thanks for your efforts on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)