Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol/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 00:02, 25 March 2008.

[edit] Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

Check external links

Self-Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been significantly improved upon since its successful GA Review to improve the previously lacking prose and citations. I believe it now exemplifies some of the great work of Wikipedia and meets the Featured Article Criteria, and therefore hereby self-nominate this article as the major contributor, also assisted by The Dominator (the GA reviewer) and Milkbreath (the copyeditor) for Featured Article status. Codharris (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose for now. Neutral
  • There is no history section. I recommend the "chronology of missions" be altered and incorporated into a broader history section. I had to do a bit of searching in the article to find out when the organization was created. Also, the history section should be the first in the article
    • It has been moved to the first section and appropriately renamed History. Is there any other information you believe should be included in this section? Codharris (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Statistics as of February 27, 2008 - this is referring to the infobox, with those stats. Is there a reference to those stat numbers?
    • I just looked at my reference (which for some reason I never did list), and it requires a login to access. Since this is not allowed on WP, I have removed the information. If I find another source, I will re-add it. Codharris (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually that is allowed as a reference, just not an external link, feel free to readd it. The Dominator (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the opening sentence, it'd be nice if you explained that better. You link echelon to Civil Air Patrol, but then three words later you also link to Civil Air Patrol.
    • Removed the echelon link as it provided no meaningful link. Codharris (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Double check the Wikilinks. In the lede alone, there are four links that are redirects.
    • I found the four in the lead and a few others throughout the article and fixed them. If there are any more, let me know. Codharris (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding the tables, I'd like a specific section of the table that says "Source", since its reference is ambiguous.
    • Would a preceding title with inline citation be appropriate? Codharris (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The organization should be tweaked a bit. Icons of the Connecticut Wing and Cadet activities are both very short sections.
    • Both have been expanded with referencing. Codharris (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused about the sourcing for the images. You say they are PD, but I'd like some clarification on that. Were those images photographed by a user, or were they online and then uploaded?
    • They are products of the U.S. Federal Government. Under Public Law 576, Civil Air Patrol is officially incorporated and designated as the official auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, a federal entity. Its logos, images and other assorted copyrights therefore fall under this domain, which is exactly how they are designated - products of the U.S. Federal government. Codharris (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the table under Squadrons under the Connecticut Wing, is it necessary to list every city as X, Connecticut? Isn't it obvious that they're all in Connecticut?
    • Removed. Codharris (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a {{fact}}, which should be addressed.
    • Deleted. Added new information in its place, with references. Codharris (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better. Yea, for the tables, an inline citation at the top would work. Regarding the history, how much of it is really attributable to the Connecticut Wing, rather than the Civil Air Patrol in general? The Hurricane Katrina section, for example, seems to focus only on the CAP in general, not necessarily on the Connecticut section. The same goes for much of the rest of the history section. Specifically, when was the Connecticut Wing formed? In the current command structure, it says As of February 2008. What does the sentence, The Connecticut Wing liaison is Lt Col Andrew Marteka., have to do with the rest of Cadet Activities, and is there a reference for it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add inline citations in a moment. As far as the history section - CTWG was among the first wings formed as the national program was formed. Thus, Connecticut Wing formed on December 1, 1941. The 9/11 section does specify CTWG's involvement, and I believe the WWII section does as well. The present section also specifically relates to CTWG's operations. Although much of CAP is similar, I have eliminated those things that do not apply to CTWG and added some more specific things. The Hurricane Katrina section, as you said, is a larger-scale event that describes CAP in general. Although CTWG personnel and aircraft were involved, it is not specific to CTWG. It is, however, important to our history as explained in the last paragraph of that section. The sentence you're referring to is meant to explain that Lt Col Marteka is the liaison for Connecticut Wing as far as those encampments go - which is directly related to the previous sentence. Thus, it is important to cadet activities. This may need a copyedit to be clear... Codharris (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll change my vote to a neutral, on the basis that portions of the article are on the CAP as a whole, not necessarily the CTWG. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hink, you have a bolded oppose and a bolded neutral. Please have mercy on my eyes, and fix your initial boled oppose to a neutral, where I can easily see it when I read through next time. Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - regarding sources and pictures.
  • Footnote 27 goes to a sale site for CAP items, and doesn't appear to source what it's footnoted to in the article.
    • Thanks for pointing that out - it has been fixed. Codharris (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Ctwg.gif lacks source information, is it fair use or free? All the other pictures look good, as they are US government so non-copyright.
    • This has also been fixed now. Codharris (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, a large amount of this article is sourced to the CAP site or to publications by it. It would be nice to see some of the Further Reading books used also, to give more of a third-party view.

Much of the information (particularly in the history sections) that I have attributed to CAP-related sites is also mentioned in the third party publications mentioned in Further Reading. However, as I do not have a copy of all of those books handy, I cannot say which facts apply to which sources. As I encounter this book, I may take care of this, but note that WP:PSTS states Primary Sources are allowed, but must be used with care. Codharris (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I didn't look at prose or MOS issues, just sources and photos. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That takes care of that! Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is CTWG a state or federal agency? I suspect I know, but it isn't as explicit as I'd like. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither. CTWG is not its own government agency. It is an entity of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc., which is a federal agency. Thus, since CTWG does not report to the state but reports through the national CAP to the United States Air Force and Joint Chiefs of Staff, we are a unit of a federal agency. Like any unit of the United States Air Force, this makes us neither - but a piece of a federal agency. Codharris (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you're referencing the images, note that productions of the individual wings are published by the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol", as indicated in the publisher line of the information tags on all of those images. Since the U.S. Civil Air Patrol is federal, the copyright status applies. Codharris (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, other than the (formerly) missing license noted by Ealdgyth, I had no image concerns. I was curious for other reasons. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as GA reviewer. Article has come a very long way and is broad in its coverage considering it covers one wing of fifty-one. The prose might need some tuning up and I would eventually like some of the further reading books used as sources. My vote is support because I'm confident that the article will meet the requirements in the next few days. I strongly suggest getting a good copyedit from either Milkbreath or someone else who has alot of experience with this stuff like Marskell. The Dominator (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Multiple 1A concerns; a thorough copy edit is needed. Some examples from the first two non-lead sections:
  • “defense against submarine attacks along the borders of the United States” – no doubt you mean coasts?
    • Mainly, yes. Where else do submarines come from? The United States is completely surrounded by water except for the Canadian border (don't forget the Rio Grande). Even still, CAP does patrol the northern border as well ... performing border patrol and homeland security missions. Although the mission was different, these flights were flown during WWII as well. So, actually, I do mean borders. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How could “privately-owned civil aircraft” engage and/or sink submarines? Where did civilian planes get armament; what armament did they have?
    • Privately-owned civil aircraft were equipped with bombs ("depth charges") and machine guns. The machine guns were rarely used, mainly to scare off German U-Boats. The depth charges are mentioned in the statistics of this section - 173 U-boats, 57 depth charges, 2 sunk. This armament came out of the pilot's pockets - they had access to the weaponry as the Air Force auxiliary, but they paid for it themselves. They were, after all, privately owned aircraft. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That should be better articulated in the article. Civilian planes attacking U-boote seems abrupt without preceding discussion of armament. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I've tried to express this more clearly in the article - let me know if this is clearer. Codharris (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • “More importantly” assignment of importance is OR. Do not editorialize, per WP:WTA
    • Will fix this. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • “A German submarine commander” – who?
    • He was a Prisoner of War! He was severely wounded and ultimately died. No one ever knew his name - that wasn't their primary concern at the time. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, asking for a name would probably have been one of the first things asked. If this isn't known, however, it isn't known. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • “the U.S. government redesignated CAP as a civilian agency” – preceding text implies this had already been a civilian agency ("Civil Air Patrol", "layer of civilian defense", "privately-owned civil aircraft", etc.)
    • "Agency" is the key word here. Agency describes a goverment position or authority, but the group consisted of civilians. Civilian is just being used to emphasize that the government's official recognition of CAP as an agency did not make them a government entity, but did make them report to the U.S. Air Force and deliver an annual report to Congress. Also, the main reason this sentence is included is the predicate of teh sentence - an agency that would not participate in combat. This removed them from submarine chasing status. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • If you're going to keep "redesignated" verbiage, the former status should be better articulated. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I've changed the phraseology of the sentence - hopefully it is more clear now.
  • “Their primary mission” – this is a singular entity.
    • Again, will fix. Subject-Verb agreement isn't really my strong suit Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question Codharris, when you've addressed issues, have you pinged the talk page of opposers for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I usually let my replies sit for a day or two, then put a note on the user's talk page if they haven't responded yet. Codharris (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hope you don't mind - I put 'question' in front of your comment to make it easier for Raul654 to follow this page. Codharris (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's kind of you, since I appreciate all the help I can get when I have to read through 50 of these pages, but unnecessary, since I'm the one following the page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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