The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Self-nominator: I believe this article exemplifies the great work of WP. Although it did not pass FAC, it did fairly well (see the archive). I believe that there are no gaping holes, only minor adjustments, to bring this article to FA status. Codharris (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Promising article but this really needs a close copy-edit by an uninvolved editor.

Examples:

• "from flying subchasers" What does this mean?
  • Meaning exactly that.. flying aircraft specifically designed to chase submarines during World War II. I think this is explained clearly throughout. Codharris (talk)

• I don't. Which is I raised it. "operating as subchasers" might be clearer. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "U.S." > "US" throughout please.
  • While I don't think either is more correct, uniformity is desirable Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as I look through the article, they all say "U.S.". If you think "US" is more appropriate, look at the footer on all WP articles... it uses U.S., so this is obviously an accepted abbreviation. Codharris (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the other abbreviations you use (CTWG, CAP, NIMS, ICS, FEMA, LISP, DOS, GO, FM, DO, SE, HQ, AFROTC, CATO etc) uses points. Thus, US for consistency because, as you say, uniformity is desirable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Numbers under ten are usually given as words. ("2" > "two" etc)
  • I've checked for these before, but I'm bound to miss some... I'll check again. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many of the spotted and attacked U-boats that were not sunk retreated" Recast more elegantly?
  • Something like "Those U-boats that remained after the attacks began to retreat"?

• Or even "the surviving U-boats began to retreat" .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "the color of the Civil Air Patrol" > "the livery of"?
  • While more elegant, red and yellow were the actual colors of the CAP, not just the airplane scheme. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• !?--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "After the war, the U.S. government officially recognized CAP as a civilian agency that would not participate in combat, such as the submarine chasing and occasional battles that had taken place during the second World War, giving the organization its first governmental connections." Convoluted?
  • Yes... and yet miraculously it is grammatically correct. This sentence's content fell under dispute during GAR and FAC, so it has received many changes and appendages. If you see a better way to state it, feel free. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "After the Second World War, the US government officially recognized CAP, for the first time, as a non-combatant civilian agency."? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

• The second paragraph of the lead is all peacock stuff. Anything more encyclopedic you could put in?
  • The first paragraph is a summary of the history, the second paragraph is a summary of significant accomplishments and demonstration of notability per WP:Notable. I see no peacockiness. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not merely summarize the content, section by section? This avoids the POV inherent in listing accomplishments. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but I really dislike the over-printing on the Air Patrol logo. Official badge or not, it's messy.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.