Talk:328th Armament Systems Wing

message: The following was removed from the article.  The information is unsourced and a search for sources was unable to find any.  If a source is found to support the information, it should be returned to the article along with an appropriate citation.
From the Cold War section:
: "From 1966 until inactivation, the 328th maintained a detachment at Grand Island Municipal Airport, Nebraska."
From the Aircraft section:
* T-33 (1957–1968)  (Use for  Tactical Evaluation & Training)
* Convair T-29 Flying Classroom (1957–1968)  (Supported Central NORAD Region/ HQ Tenth Air Force & HQ 29th Air Division)  
* T-39 (1962–1968)  (Supported Central NORAD Region / HQ Tenth Air Force)
 --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported information 

message: Note 4 should also be linked into the second paragraph in the Cold War section (perhaps with a slight re-wording) since Richards-Gebaur is abruptly mentioned there without explanation
:  (The move prompted an expansion of the note for context, which in turn required a different source)
Would the last sentence of 3rd para under System development read better with a mix of commas and semicolons?
:  Yes, and I believe a colon helps as well.
The "oversized parent unit" bit-  it's not clear if the 328th group is the oversized parent unit for the mentioned cadre's or if it's the 328th group which has an oversized parent unit (and if so, oversized relative to what- is the parent unit a wing, a numbered air force, a MAJCOM, etc.?)
:  I've clarified the unit.  I'm reluctant to add a comparison to type of unit because it seems to me it would require too much explanation that might not be helpful.  The comparison is to other fighter groups and their component squadrons (for part of the time). Early on, the OTU program involved an organization that added to its personnel and equipment until enough trained folks were available to spin off a "satellite group" and component squadrons. Later the RTU program typically added a fourth squadron to the group with two squadrons and group hq operating at one station and the other two squadrons at a second station in place of the standard three fighter squadrons per group of WW II, and the squadrons were bigger because they had both instructors and students assigned.  I'm reluctant to use the term "oversized parent group" because both the OTU and RTU programs continued after the 1944 using Base Units and lettered sections or squadrons rather than groups.  I've linked unit in hope that might help clarify things.
The last sentence of 3rd para under System development.  While I believe the sentence is grammatically correct like it is now (with only comma's) I wonder if it wouldn't read better (ie more naturally) with a mix of comma's and semicolon's, as appropriate (semicolon's seperating items in the list, commas marking off what each one did)
: See above.
5th para- "The following year..."- the previous mention of a year (2005) is quite a way's prior up the article, is 2006 what is meant?  If so perhaps that should be clarified so the reader doesn't have to backtrack so far.  If not, then it definately needs to be fixed.
:   I usually try to mix up language a bit to avoid the:  "In 2005 . . ."  "In 2006 . . .", but you're right, it's to separated in this case.
some minor copy-edit's I went ahead and did, let me know if that messed anything up.
: Nope, looks fine.
Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It all looks great now.  Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  some copy-editing suggestions