Talk:Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

GA

GA Review

I'm not actually reviewing this article, but it has no chance of passing unless you format those references properly, using WP:CITE.--The Dominator (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I put the article on hold and am on the verge of failing it if it is not fixed up, right now it's nowhere close to GA.
  • The lead needs to be expanded and divided into paragraphs.
  • The prose is very amateur and needs a copyedit
  • The article has many grammatical mistakes that are not acceptable for a GA
  • The images need a specification under "author"
  • Published sources are needed
  • Sources need to be properly formatted
  • The wing commander and squadron lists have to be integrated into the article or deleted
    • They also require sources
  • "because of those damned little red and yellow airplanes" that quote needs attribution
  • "along our nations borders" an article is not to be written from the point of view of a country or any other group, it's a violation of WP: POV, not to mention the fact that it should be "nation's"
  • Specifics:
    • "The wing currently comprises more than 600 members" missing "of"
    • "The Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol is the highest echelon of the Civil Air Patrol, the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force, in the state of Connecticut." needs an "and" rather than a comma.
    • "Currently, the Wing Commander of the CT Wing is Col Peter K. Jensen, the Vice Commander is Lt Col Matthew Valleu, and the Chief of Staff is Lt Col Cassandra Huchko" this needs to be expanded upon, what is the significance of the positions? What power do they have?
    • A citation is needed for that long press release in the section "History of the Civil Air Patrol"
    • In the section "Past Wing Commanders" the ages and length of service are given, but the what have the commanders done? Why is the length of their stay in office significant? Their office length is merely trivial information unless you add something about their careers, that section is also plagued by very short sentences.
    • The WWII section needs sources.
    • So does the post-war
    • Why are there links at the end of some paragraphs? Are those supposed to be references?

That is all for now and I wish you the best of luck, but you probably should have put the article up for peer review first. If you fix these problems up, I'll take another look--The Dominator (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response by Editor

I wish to dispute several of the arguments you have outlined, though not all of them. For clarity, I include them attached to a copy of your notes below. Codharris (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead needs to be expanded and divided into paragraphs.
    • The Wikipedia Guide of Style outlines that, generally, articles of the length this one is should have a lead section of 1-2 paragraphs. While I agree the lead section could and should be expanded, this is not cause to fail the GA
  • The prose is very amateur and needs a copyedit
    • Much of the article consists of quotes and sections taken from referenced resources. There is nothing that can be done about the prose of these. As for article content, the article is written, as all on WP should be, to be understood by all. It should be of professional and encyclopedic prose that most people can understand. If you don't believe this meets that requirement, please elaborate on why.
  • The article has many grammatical mistakes that are not acceptable for a GA
    • Many editors, including the admin that put this article on WP, have read this article and made suggestions for grammatical changes. If any are left after the extensive review, please specify.
  • The images need a specification under "author"
    • Agreed.
  • Published sources are needed
    • Several are. Thanks to the modern revolution of the Internet, these print sources are also available on the web, and thus links are included. The topic, while notable and encyclopedic in nature, is not a broad enough topic to have numerous print sources.
  • Sources need to be properly formatted
    • They are. As per WP:CITE, embedded citations have been used, enclosed with the proper REF tags so that a list of links appears at the bottom. The reference list corresponds to these links, and is MLA formatted as it should be.
  • The wing commander and squadron lists have to be integrated into the article or deleted
    • Not always true, but I see the argument here.
    • They also require sources
      • They are, the references for those sections are references for those lists.
  • "because of those damned little red and yellow airplanes" that quote needs attribution
    • It is attributed, though the actual citation appears later in that section.
  • "along our nations borders" an article is not to be written from the point of view of a country or any other group, it's a violation of WP: POV, not to mention the fact that it should be "nation's"
    • Agreed.
  • Specifics:
    • "The wing currently comprises more than 600 members" missing "of"
      • The proper use of the word "Comprise" is possibly one of the most ridiculous debates I have ever heard, but it is very common. While it is properly used here, I will change the grammar completely to avoid this controversy.
    • "The Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol is the highest echelon of the Civil Air Patrol, the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force, in the state of Connecticut." needs an "and" rather than a comma.
      • The phrase "the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force" is an clause containing non-essential information to the sentence and is synonymous with "Civil Air Patrol," and thus should be offset by commas and not the word "and."
    • "Currently, the Wing Commander of the CT Wing is Col Peter K. Jensen, the Vice Commander is Lt Col Matthew Valleu, and the Chief of Staff is Lt Col Cassandra Huchko" this needs to be expanded upon, what is the significance of the positions? What power do they have?
      • While this may be going to far into depth on a small aspect of the Wing that is not broad enough to fit with the "broad but specific" category of the GA evaluation guide.
    • A citation is needed for that long press release in the section "History of the Civil Air Patrol"
      • It is cited.
    • In the section "Past Wing Commanders" the ages and length of service are given, but the what have the commanders done? Why is the length of their stay in office significant? Their office length is merely trivial information unless you add something about their careers, that section is also plagued by very short sentences.
      • Same as the argument regarding the list above.
    • The WWII section needs sources.
      • True, although much of this information is reiterated in the History of CAP section with references.
    • So does the post-war
      • True.
    • Why are there links at the end of some paragraphs? Are those supposed to be references?
      • They are properly formatted citations as per WP:CITE. They are embedded citations with reference tags to the footnote section, and the complete citation is included below that.

Reviewer's Response

Sources need to include full bibliographic info, author, publisher, title, for websites url and accessdate. It is unacceptable to have the url visible. I suggest using citation Templates. An entire section that is not referenced is also unacceptable. Quotes need to be directly cited or removed. You say that everything is cited, but I'm having trouble seeing that as it is cited incorrectly. This article needs further copyediting. Currently I would fail it in prose, sources, and maybe even broad coverage, since many sections could use expansion.--The Dominator (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some specific issues:
  • "The full list of Wing staff positions is found on the Wing Headquarters's website", that seems very unencyclopedic
  • "Since Connecticut is a smaller state" smaller? Smaller to what? Needs better wording.
  • "At 30, Lt Col Lockhart was the youngest person to become Connecticut Wing Commander. At 68, Col Herbert was the oldest. Col Tier (nee Hopkins) was the niece of Lady Astor, and a prominent aviatrix in her own right. She was the Civil Air Patrol's first female wing commander. Col Shutter served twice as Wing Commander, and died in office in late 1953. Col Frost was appointed in early 1954. Col Frost died a few weeks after relinquishing wing command in 1957. At the time of his death, he commanded the Northeast Region's Northern District, and had been designated next in line to command the Region. Col Drouin died in late 1957 after only six months in office. Col Kavanagh was appointed in early 1958. Col Howard Palmer was the longest-serving Connecticut Wing Commander, with eleven years in office. Col Payne was the first former cadet to command the wing" As a reader, I don't care how long they were in office if I don't know anything else about them.
  • "A recent issue of the Civil Air Patrol Volunteer magazine featured an image of all of Connecticut Wing's squadron patches surrounding the Wing patch" Needs a source.
  • "the first out of state encampment in recent times" recent times is vague, specific year?
  • "The CAP National History project and National Museum most recognize CT Wing for their involvement..." The "most", even though grammatically correct, is confusing in that part.
  • "...the types of missions performed by the Connecticut Wing and the Civil Air Patrol as a whole have changed drastically." needs source
  • "After the war, the U.S. Government redesignated CAP as a noncombatant civilian agency." What exactly were they before?
  • "Civil Air Patrol got its moment to shine during the Attacks of September 11, 2001." moment to shine is not a very encyclopedic phrase, please change that.
  • "...called on the very best of CAP's volunteers..." Is there a source that they were the very best?
  • Why is the last section formatted so strangely with double-spacing almost every sentence?

I'll try to help with some of the stuff when I have more time, cheers.--The Dominator (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note this, embedded citations are strongly discouraged, and where they are used, it is still unacceptable for the url to be seen. I would help you convert them to the more standard referencing style if you permit me to do that.--The Dominator (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to edit now in fear of an edit conflict since I've seen that the references have greatly improved, but I noticed that some of the references have the little numbers before commas and periods when they should be after.--The Dominator (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The list of commanders can probably be left, but the paragraph that comes after is embarrassing, it basically says the same as the list except in paragraph form, from the list we can see who the oldest, youngest. etc. is. Overall I think this needs way more sources, it also heavily relies on that one website.--The Dominator (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that four paragraph press release really necessary? In what way does it even highlight the "History of Civil air patrol"?--The Dominator (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this article has come a long way! To be honest, when I started reviewing I thought it had no chance of passing, now, with some prose improvements it can possibly make it.--The Dominator (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to wait a while, for Milkbreath's requests to be completed and for something to be done about that press release and then I'll pass it.--The Dominator (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit notes and questions

Lead ?

I did the lead. One question: Is December 1 now "Civil Air Patrol Day" every year in Connecticut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbreath (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all I found in a Google search:[1] and that part of the article seems to be copied directly from that, btw thanks for doing this.--The Dominator (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Found it. Done. (No biggie, glad to help.) --Milkbreath (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The proclamation only specified December 1, 2007. Thus, December 1 will not be CAP Day every year in Connecticut unless Gov. Rell reissues the proclamation.Codharris (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, but I found this which seems to indicate that December 1 is the Day in perpetuity. Also, it seems odd to proclaim one day it, and on the day it is it, if you know what I mean. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Going strictly by references, you're right, the proclamation appears to have implied ALL Dec. 1's be CAP Day. The only reason I know otherwise is because I've seen the original proclamation. I'll ask around in case anyone else might know where to look for a better reference. Also, this isn't the first time I've heard of a day proclaimed on the day that it is, though this does seem unusual. Codharris (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe you, and I've changed the wording of the lead accordingly. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Squadrons

What is meant by "connections with units of other branches"? --Milkbreath (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Milkbreath, thanks for doing all of this... the article is looking great with the copyediting so far. The reference to "connections with units of other branches" is predominantly meant to refer to CTWG's relationship to Detachment 115 of Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (listed at the bottom of the squadron links). They are not officially a subordinate unit, but partnerships exist with them. For example, their cadets often judge the military drill competition for the Connecticut Wing. Codharris (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
All right, but I guess I need to know what a "branch" is and what it is a branch of, and what a "unit" is. I'm trying to fix the sentence "There are also three non-standard squadrons (000, 001, and 999) under Wing HQ, and there are connections with units of other branches." As it stands, it conveys little meaning to the general reader. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
A "branch" simply refers to one of the five main armed forces: Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and Army. A "unit" is simply a solitary echelon in the structure of a given branch - CTWG as a whole is a unit, and each individual squadron is also a unit). Specifically in this sentence, a "unit" is referring to Detachment 116, which is part of the Air Force (Branch) Reserve Officer Training Corps.Codharris (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I know there's a point beyond which my obtuseness will get annoying, but I really don't care about that if I end up understanding and can then fix the sentence. My question now is if CAP is the auxiliary of the Air Force (branch), and the ROTC unit is Air Force ROTC, how is the ROTC a unit of another branch? --Milkbreath (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose this is a valid point. Most people seem to consider AFROTC and CAP to be minor "branches" in their own right, though they are definitely not major armed forces by themselves. Anyway, partnerships do exist with other branches - there is a partership with the United States Navy in which CAP has done photo reconnaissance missions for them in Connecticut, and many partnerships exist with the Army - many of the CTWG squadrons are co;located with Army National Guard units, and the annual encampment is normally held in Niantic, Connecticut at an Army National Guard base. So, although your point that AFROTC is not of another branch, the sentence is still valid - just not well elaborated.Codharris (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wanted it not to throw the reader. I've changed it. Please check to see whether it says what it's supposed to. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems much clearer. Codharris (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Past Wing commanders

What does it mean for a commander to "earn a glider"? The uninitiated reader is baffled. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Glider Program is relatively new to CAP. In order for a Wing to receive a glider, certain criteria must be met. This might include having a member who owns a glider provide flights for other members for some period of time, or having a certain number of glider flight instructors. The glider from CTWG (which is no longer in CT) was a brand new L23 Superblanik glider, and the requirements to receive one wouldn't have been fulfilled if Col Sturges hadn't worked with the local soaring club (Danielson Soaring Association) to gain instructors and later to hold the Flight Academy referenced in the article. Thus, it was Col. Sturges who "earned" the glider on behalf of Connecticut Wing. Codharris (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording. Is it right? --Milkbreath (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks! Codharris (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Um, I hesitate to bring it up, but, handsome and confidence-inspiring as Colonel Jensen is, who is going to make sure to change that picture when his term ends? I think that their logo would be better. --Milkbreath (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it as well as rearranged some other pics, I've notified the nominator of your copyedit and questions, I myself have no idea what it means to "earn a glider".--The Dominator (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree having the commander (a photo which must be changed every four years, on average) could be problematic, he does represent the Connecticut Wing nationally. This is why I chose to include him at the top - people connect with other people. Most people won't see the logo and understand anything about what CTWG does, but seeing a person in a military uniform will provide more information (such as the fact that CTWG is a paramilitary organization, or something like that). Also, including the logo twice seems very redundant. Codharris (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the patch is not what I had in mind when I suggested putting a logo up in place of our dashing Colonel (I love the patch, by the way). It does seem wrong to have the patch there twice. On the CTWG website there is an animated logo that would be good to use here if it weren't animated. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant, a logo, not the patch.--The Dominator (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I could probably get a still shot of that animation. I'll work on that. Codharris (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Codharris (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Icons

What does it mean for a patch to become "become optional on the left sleeve"? And in what way do members "maintain" patches? The sentence makes no sense as it is. --Milkbreath (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

While grammatically correct, this sentence is very patchy. Essentially, it is supposed to say that prior to this new regulation change, everyone in the Civil Air Patrol had to wear a patch on the left sleeve of the Battle Dress Uniform to signify which Wing they were from, and the photograph is of the patch that all CTWG members wore. With the change, it became optional to wear this patch on the lef sleeve of the uniform, and members had the option of continuing to wear the patch or leaving the sleeve blank. The quote about maintaining patches is meant to say that Colonel Jensen requested all CTWG members continue wearing the patch on their left sleeves, even though it was no longer required.Codharris (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording. You like? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That looks much better. Codharris (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Logo

I think a logo is needed at the top right hand corner of the the article, I think it should be there if I'm going to pass this article in the "images" category.--The Dominator (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right that my blow-up was too grainy. I just wanted to remove the caption, but it looked too small then. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I commented on this above under the heading "Photo"Codharris (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done

I think I'm finished; let me know. I'll look it over again in a little while with a relatively fresh eye. Most articles I copyedit have a memorable something in them. I'll never forget "those damned little red-and-yellow airplanes." Those fliers must have burst their buttons when they heard that. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, Milkbreath! Hopefully Dominik can pass the GA now. Codharris (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Final GA Review

  1. Well Written? Pass It's reasonably well written which is what the GA criteria wants. I still suggest that you get another copyedit at the league, it certainly can't hurt the article.
  2. Factually accurate? Verifiable? Weak Pass Needs printed sources and more online sources than that one website, it heavily relies on it, I'm sure there have been books written on CAP that will have a full chapter on Connecticut.
  3. Broad in its coverage? Weak Pass Because of the lack of early history, needs a history section better than a three paragraph press release.
  4. Neutral? Pass It had some problems when I first read it (like referring to the US as our nation) but it seems good now
  5. Stable? Pass Good
  6. Images? Pass Had a very minor problem that is fixed now.

Overall: PASS--The Dominator (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Codharris (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proceeding without review

I'm going to give this article until March 6th. If, by then, no comments have been recieved on WP:RfF or WP:LoCE, I'm going to delist it from both and go ahead with the peer review. After the peer review, if the reviewer believes a copyedit is still necessary, I will relist it at WP:LoCE and continue to wait before applying for A-Class Review. I'm not complaining about the wait - I'm letting another two weeks go by. I just want to make sure I'm being as productive as possible with the article. Codharris (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to take it to any A-class review, just go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, but only when the article is completely perfect, they take apart every detail. The Dominator (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That was my original plan - I figured if it wasn't absolutely perfect (and it may never be) that it would at least become an A-Class. Then I found out the Military History Wikiproject has a formal review process for A-Class articles - I figured its a good way to get a critique against the FA criteria before actually nominating for FAC. 64.252.70.83 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As a note, you only wikilink the first occurrence of something in an article and possibly if it appears much later in the article, also, when linking to red links, make sure to link only to articles that are likely to be created, if not link to something more appropriate. For example, if there isn't an article on "vice-commander" instead, link it to "List of air force ranks". The Dominator (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes there... I hadn't noticed vice commander was a redlink, and I've seen so many articles with wikilinks repeated... I never gave it a second thought. Codharris (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Citations and Prose

Are there any specific items requiring citation which remain uncited, or any blatant violations of MoS? Codharris (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see two things: In the table; the field "Designation" is empty "USAF Reserve Officer Training Corps Det. 115", if it has none I recommend just writing none (in italics). The second thing is, the statement that commanders encourage the pilots to wear the patch needs a source. I'll try to give it a little copyedit. The Dominator (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in the none. I'm pretty sure there was a source for that statement, but it may have been lost in the copyedit. I'll see if I can find it again. Codharris (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, watch those links though, usually you won't link to things that don't provide context for the reader, most articles won't link to things like leadership or headquarters although in this article it seems to flow well for some reason. I removed repetitive links especially links to Civil Air Patrol, I've left three of those in separate paragraphs, we'll see what the FA people have to say about it. By the way, I think you should take it to FA rather than the A-class review, I'm pretty interested to see what the FA people will say about this article. One overall problem that I see is that at points it is unclear whether the article is referring to Connecticut Wing or Civil Air Patrol in general and most of the sources seem to be about CAP rather than Connecticut specifically. This though, shouldn't matter as the basics of CAP and CTWG are, I assume, the same. I'm also going to add a "See also" section and I suggest you add a section called "External links" even if the only one is going to be their website. The Dominator (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Still trying to find that reference. I think that's the main thing left to do before an FAC. I'll still wait until March 6th in case anyone else chooses to comment, but I'll do as you say and nominate for FAC instead of ACR. That's another TLA (Three Letter Acronym)!! :-) Codharris (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed a few typos in "Squadrons". When I gave this article a complete copyedit not too long ago, I made all abbreviations of military ranks have a period, like "Lt. Col. Bob Marley". Now, some are one way and some the other. Which way would we like them to be? --Milkbreath (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Techinically, CAP regulations say that periods are not to be included (Lt Col, not Lt. Col.), although it is common to see both. Codharris (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I got all of them. At least, I hope I did.... Codharris (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Great article, and even if it doesn't make it to FA status, we'll at least get more suggestions for improvement. The Dominator (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and delist the article from RfC, RfF and LoCE, then nominate it for PR. Although the FAC could be used as a peer review, I'd like to get third party feedback first. I'll give it a little while to see if there's any response. Codharris (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sentence

"Based on Connecticut's 2000 Census data, with an estimated population of 3,405,565, approximately one out of every 5500 citizens of Connecticut are members of the Civil Air Patrol." Do you think that's really necessary? More significant statistics like 1 out of 10 is informative, but this is irrelevant. The Dominator (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be going to great lengths to emphasize just how few Connecticut...ers(?) are in CAP. The grammar's bad, too. It should be "one...is a member...". --Milkbreath (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
removed it. The Dominator (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ready to go?

Alright... I'm getting ready to nominate for FAC. Any last comments before submitting should be posted on the Peer Review page if they apply, otherwise post them on the talk page. Thanks, Codharris (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any books that were written specifically about CAP that include Connecticut? A "Further Reading" section could possibly save the article's somewhat lacking references. The Dominator (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There aren't any I'm aware of that specifically mention Connecticut, though as you pointed out Connecticut and the National Civil Air Patrol have much in common. There was a recent book I've read about the history of CAP, which I believe mentions the Sikorsky used by Connecticut during Coastal Patrol missions - I'll see if I can find a copy and double check. There's also this one, which I haven't read: [2] Codharris (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's always a good idea to use books as sources if they're available. So I would recommend making a further reading section, make sure you include, author, title, publisher, date and ISBN. The Dominator (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the book I was actually looking for - it mentions CTWG's involvement with Coastal Patrol. I can't recall if the Wing was specifically mentioned anywhere else, but it definitely provides an all-encompassing history of CAP as it pertains to this article as well. [3] Codharris (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, I've never added "Further Reading" sections so you might want to look for the appropriate MoS policy. The Dominator (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the proper MoS entry. It's supposed to be alphabetized and bulleted, which I just did. Codharris (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to plan on nominating for FAC on Friday (March 7th). Any objections or final suggestions, please post. Codharris (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Only thing I can say is, make sure you have as many sources as is humanly possible. I wish you good luck and will standby and help improve the article during nomination. The Dominator (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've torn apart several bookshelves and found several sources with substantial information on CAP. I'm including them in the Further Reading section unless I decide to add them as a plain old reference. Codharris (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm going to archive this talk page again once the article is nominated - this page will probably fill up quickly with comments/criticism of reviewers, so it should have a fresh start first. Codharris (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to do that, may I suggest not creating a new archive, but rather adding it to the old one you've created. The Dominator (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I could, but might I ask why? Wouldn't it make more sense to create Archive2 and have that listed in the archive box? Codharris (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Because archives are generally much bigger, in fact I don't think it was necessary to archive at all. Talk pages often have fifty sections and isn't archived, more archives are annoying because if I'm looking for info I have to search through the various archives. I'm not a huge fan of large archives, but creating a separate archive in this case would just create confusion. Did you nominate yet? The Dominator (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →