Inserting or removing the word "start" is not going to improve the rating as long as most B Class items are marked yes/no -- it's either Start or unrated. So I'll rate it (it will end up Start no matter what I put in "class="). Giving specific ratings will require more specific reasons to alter the rating.
I'm switching the only "yes" to a "no" because the description of the 10th group is telegraphic (lacks subjects for the sentences and articles), but the rest is "yes". If B4 were cleaned up I'd suggest that the editor who has done most of the work here put it up for B Class assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Notice that the slightly different standards of the Aviation Project give it a C rating despite the identical ratings in the individual factors. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Decided to streamline the 10th TCG to just a simple statement and let the history and details of the unit to its own article. Also went though the entire article and tweaked a few things for clarity and expanded the postwar history of the Troop Carrier mission to relate how it exists today Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This portion of the article goes astray from the subject of the article. I would suggest shortening it to a paragraph on single management of troop carrier forces and advanced training in the US. I'd also add in the "See also" section links to organizations like Eighteenth Air Force. The concept of a division between theater and global airlift is no longer current, much less the idea of "troop carrier" as a separate force. --Lineagegeek (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)