This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.
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:
Article has been completely revised, requires re-evaluation.
Our cousins over the water are trying to rewrite history again!! The abbreviation for third is 3rd, in the rest of the world except the US just recently, so mos of the unit titles in this article are incorrect, as changes in grammar are not retrospective for names of units !!!!--Petebutt (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made the grammar change for 3d (which is a USAF preferrence) to the more general audience preference (which most Wikipedia readers would count as) of 3rd. They were reversed by another editor. It is my personal opinion that these articles should cater to a very general audience with writers and editors assuming lack of military understanding and acronymns on behalf of the readers. Does the the Military History Wiki group have a standard guideline for numbers? If so, can someone post a link to it here? TeriEmbrey—Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears no one has responded to Pete's request for assessment since July. B4=yes, but B1=no. There remain unreferenced statements and sources are used to support statements they do not contain. For example, "the 354th transferred a squadron of its A-7Ds to the squadron, along with volunteer airmen who joined the host 388th Tactical Fighter Wing" is not supported by the mistitled AFHRA Factsheet used to support the statement.
I could find no verifiable information on the squadron being reactivated or redesignated as a Jayhawk squadron after the IFF mission was consolidated at three other bases in 2011. The Vance Air Force Base web site is no help, because its unit pages have only entries for the 71st Wing and the medical group and each of these directs to a dead link. However, I did find hints. First is the image in the infobox, but it does not have an exact date. Second is an undated Vance AFB telephone book listing the squadron as equipped with the Jayhawk. I've left the picture and the aircraft flown entries on the page even though inconsistent with the rest of the article. Anyone who can find a source is invited to update the page. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
