Talk:17th Special Operations Squadron

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/squadrons_flights_pages/0017sos.html
  • In 17th Special Operations Squadron on 2011-05-25 02:00:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 17th Special Operations Squadron on 2011-06-01 22:24:59, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/squadrons_flights_pages/0001sos.asp
  • In 17th Special Operations Squadron on 2011-05-25 02:00:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 1st Special Operations Squadron on 2011-05-25 06:54:08, 404 Not Found
  • In 17th Special Operations Squadron on 2011-06-01 22:25:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 17th Special Operations Squadron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210130902/https://www2.afsoc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=225 to http://www2.afsoc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=225

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:17th Special Operations Squadron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some comments below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Looks good

Comments

1. Is "airland" a word?
2. What about "beddown"?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Both are US military terms. Beddown is the "execution of a basing action" per AFI 10-503. Airland is the coordination of air and ground forces in battle. Kges1901 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • All good then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam era patch

The squadron apparently did not have an approved emblem during the Vietnam War. Endicott, Judy G. (1998). Active Air Force Wings as of 1 October 1995 and USAF Active Flying, Space, and Missile Squadrons as of 1 October 1995 (PDF). Air Force History and Museums Program. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. p. 455. ASIN B000113MB2. Retrieved July 2, 2014. (listing 1943, 1990 and 1993 emblems). The depicted patch appears to be no more than a morale patch, and I doubt it should be displayed in the infobox as if it were an approved emblem, or alternatively a source cited to indicate that it was used as a squadron emblem (not just as a morale patch), although not officially approved. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the patch into the body; it was apparently actually used by the squadron on its HQ. Kges1901 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Citations

I believe the authors of materiel from the voloumes Craven and Cate edited need to be credited in the citations to their work. (Rohfleisch, Mortenson, Futrell and Cate). I'm not familiar with the citation template used here, or I'd do it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)