Talk:No. 500 Squadron RAF

Military history: Aviation / British / European

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ghisonaccia

@Nigel Ish: G'day, Nigel. Thanks for your work on this article. Regarding the "verification needed" tagged information, I have found a source that verifies some (but not all) of the tagged information. As such, I'd suggest potentially rewording it to something like this: "In September 1943, one of the squadron's aircraft landed at Ghisonaccia, on Corsica, shortly after it was abandoned by the German garrison.<ref>{{cite web |author=Rickard, J. |title=No. 500 Squadron (RAF): Second World War |url=http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/500_wwII.html |work=History of War |accessdate=16 December 2018}}</ref>". Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not a reliable source - the Rawlings Coastal Squadrons book does mention a detachment at Ghisonaccia which probably says enough.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Nigel, your changes look good. Not really an issue any more, I guess, but am keen to clarify what your concerns are about Rickard as a source, though. I have seen the site referenced in A-class and FA-rated articles before (e.g. Rhine Campaign of 1796). The author appears to have military history credentials and the site's co-author is published: [1]. Is there something I'm missing about it's reliability? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]