This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article was copy edited by Philg88, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 28, 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Review comments
As requested, here is a followup to my earlier peer review comments. The article looks much better, but still needs a lot of improvements to fully comply with the WP:MOS. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which impede the narrative flow - I would try to either combine these with other paragraphs or perhaps expand them.
As an example of this, the lead is four paragraphs, but three of those paragraphs are either one or two sentences long. Given the current length of the article, a two or three paragraph lead seems more than sufficient. See WP:LEAD
Wherever possible I would follow chronological order for maximum understanding. Two examples follow:
The first paragraph of Hillingdon House starts in 1717, then goes back to 1690, then forward in time to 1844, then way back to 1617:
Hillingdon House, the country estate which eventually became RAF Uxbridge, was built in 1717 by the Duke of Schomberg,[3] a general serving under William of Orange (later King William III) and subsequently Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, who was knighted for his part in the 1690 Battle of the Boyne. The Grade II listed[4] mansion was completely rebuilt after it burned down in 1844[5] and stands on the site of a previous house, also occupied by the Duke and reputed to have been built in 1617.[6]
I would try rewriting it in chronlogical order, so perhaps something like the following would work (Note - I would move the 1844 fire and rebuilding to the chronologically correct order paragraph).
RAF Uxbridge grew out of Hillingdon House, a Grade II listed country estate. The first house on the site is reputed to have been built in 1617. It was a residence of the Duke of Schomberg, who was knighted for his part in the 1690 Battle of the Boyne, served as a general under William of Orange (later King William III), and subsequently was Commander-in-Chief of the king's forces [not sure if "the Forces" meant this - guessed]. The Duke built the current mansion in 1717, on the site of the previous house.
The other example is the first three paragraphs of "The latter years". The first paragraph is 1958 to 1970s to 2010 (with a quick reference back to the 1940s). The second paragraph is 1969, 1948, 1957. The third paragraph is 1948 and 1958. This is fine if you already know the history, but is just confusing if you do not.
Make sure to provide context to the reader - for example, if you do not know who Douglas Bader was, erhaps a sentence expalining what he went on to do after his time at Uxbridge would help. See WP:PCR
I also thought the World War Two section could use more information on how the place functioned. The article on RAF Group 11 lists the air commands under RAF Uxbridge.
There is also the word "non-flying" in the lead, but more could be done to explain that in the body of the article
The references are a real mess and need to provide more information to the interested reader. How is an interested reader supposed to find the original source when all the article says is "Newspaper cutting Uxbridge library" (I am guessing that the library has many such clippings). What newspaper? When was it published? What page(s)? Is the author known? What was the title of the article?
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
Books need author, title, publisher, location, page number(s), OCLC or ISBN if available.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch><>°°16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
"RAF Uxbridge was also responsible for preparing the Under-Secretary of State ..."; "The station paraded through Uxbridge town centre ...": These may get snide comments at FAC, as if it were obvious when you can and can't say that a station is doing something, but it can actually get a bit subtle. I have no problem with the first one; the second one is a little off, particularly since it's followed by "RAF Uxbridge became a satellite station ...", so you're using "station" in two different senses. "RAF Uxbridge personnel" is fine, although you just said that a few sentences earlier, and variation might help. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from British editors who know something about how "listed" is used in practice. Since 92% of the UK's listed buildings are Grade II listed, could we link "listed" to "Grade II listed" without too much confusion? - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see 3 of Ruhrfisch's comments above that haven't IMO been dealt with: "non-flying" isn't going to mean anything to many readers, the Hillingdon House paragraph (and maybe others ... see above) still jumps around in time, and some FAC reviewers will have a problem with the many shortish paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Station crest
The author of this page needs to do a little research into correct heraldic terminology. RAF unit insignia are not crests. They are properly called badges.109.158.158.164 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
