Talk:Paul Farnes

Commentary

Good subject material, just needs some polishing and a bit more research. Point by point:

• There are enough references for the material presented, but they need to be in a more acceptable format: author, title, date, url, date of last access.
• Coverage: The second half reads more like his military record. There should be some mention of what he did during those assignments. Why are they significant? And the article ends with the end of the war. What did he do later?
• Grammar and style: Too many abbreviations. Article assumes reader has more than passing familiar with the British military. Every agency should be spelled out first with abreviation in parenthesis: the Royal Air Force (RAF). Then there's the "Few". I thought it was a typo, but saw it in the categories at the bottom. Is this an order? An association? A clause or sentence of explanation is needed. Then there are the unit designations. Is it standard British military style to write "No." before the unit?
• Supporting materials: Although the article would benefit from a photo, of the man and/or the model plane he flew, I figured an infobox is acceptable for the Mil His Project.

Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In reply to User:Boneyard90, I feel that the abbreviations and "The Few" have been fixed. I found the full meaning of the abbreviations and linked them to their en.wikipedia.org page followed by the abbreviations. If a reader is confused, then they may click on the wikipedia page and find additional information. Does that make sense? It sounds like the long way around of explaining what I slightly changed in the article. As for the "standard British military style to write "No." before the unit?" question, you raised, I find it is a common thing for British RAF pilots. This maybe a mistake or a wrong interpretation, but it I've gone along with it. As for the rest, I will leave it for someone else to try and organise especially the references and any books, magazines and URLs for further information. Adamdaley (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's looking alot better! I think all the re-direct brackets are a big help. I asked about the unit designation because army units use ordinal numbers, for example: 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), or the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division. However, the "No." prefix may be an RAF custom as you suggest. If you think it is, I say leave it as is! Boneyard90 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Early 1945

In early 1945 Farnes took command of 164 RAF Squadron Argentine British, not of 124 Baroda. It's a clerical error. And shortly thereafter, just after VE Day, I think, the 164 became the 63.