Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/509th Composite Group/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

509th Composite Group edit

509th Composite Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Reedmalloy (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next in the series of Manhattan Project articles. This one is about the unit that carried out the raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "code-named "Fat Man" arrived": You use "the Fat Man" (except adjectivally) everywhere except here, so at least consider going with "code-named the "Fat Man" arrived".
    • The term actually has two slightly different meanings. To most people, the Fat man was the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. But to us military historians, it is a Mark III atomic bomb, for which components were made during and after the war. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Nice work, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Typo: consisted on the members
  • It would probably be prettier if the source for the B-29 table was changed to a cite at the end of the caption; like those in the organization section.
  • I'm not sure I understand this bit: Jabit III,[45] although the version shown at the 509th Yearbook gallery was first shown in 1997. There's a photo of Jabit III that shows nose art, but we don't know if it's authentic or not?
    • The yearbook contains an illustration of the nose artwork, but there is no evidence that it was ever painted on the plane. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • One dead external link, Manhattan Project is overlinked, no Dabs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd forgotten all about this, but the changes look good. Next time, ping me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Hawkeye, would you mind sharing the links to the other A/FA articles in this series? I wanted to see how this fit with those other ones, My talk pg is fine, thanks! Here are some comments before I review the series:
  • Some tables are centered, some are left aligned and some are bulleted lists w/different color schemes - I would standardize on one format.
  • I think the asterisk should be a footnote.
  • I assume the notability of some of the commander are worthy of red links or inclusion in the infobox, this is kind of an edge case w/notability since I couldn't find any of them made it to flag rank in a spot check but this mission is unique. Since the individual aircraft all have their own pages, you'd assume the officers would too.
    • No, the notable commanders is only for the commanding officers of the unit. the 509th Composite Group only had one commander: Tibbetts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant the links in the article for the individual aircraft pilots not the infobox, sorry I should have used a different phrasing. Mabye redlink LTC Thomas J. Classen, since he received a Distinguished Service Cross and participated in this particular mission, which in itself is pretty notable? He's the only one I found when I checked this weekend. Kirk (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead probably could be 3 paragraphs with a little work. Kirk (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Hatnote: The 509th Operations Group article includes group history and lineage as an AAF unit as well as history and lineage as a USAF unit. Suggest the same format as the note in "History"
  • Infobox, honors and campaigns: Kill the ribbons AAF/USAF units are awarded streamers, not ribbons. They are not awarded oak leaf clusters, they are awarded additional streamers with different embroidery. I personally prefer the table format Dainomite had developed to present these, but Chacu a son gout. If you have an interest, 444th Bombardment Group uses them.
  • Infobox: Bombardment and aerial transport composite might benefit from rephrasing. US does not use "aerial" transport, but in that era "air" transport. I'd suggest the first two change to bombardment and air transport since links in the infobox are freebies under WP:OVERLINK,
  • Commas to eliminate: II, and tasked with . . . Japan, in August . . . 9 December 1944, and activated . . . continue training, and were
  • [[Utah]], [[New Mexico]], [[Cuba]] [[Washington (U.S. State}]] to Utah, New Mexico, Cuba. Washington per WP:OVERLINK (names of major geographic locations)
  • "one of the ten original bombardment groups . . ." This only appears in the lead, not the narrative. It needs support, or this becomes a C-class article.
    • Meh. I don't know who wrote it, but it is easy enough to reference. In fact, there were some other groups assigned to SAC in addition to the origibal ten, but they were paper units which were inactivated on 31 March 1946. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Great Bend, Kansas and Mountain Home, Idaho to Great Bend Army Air Field and Mountain Home Air Force Base with piping as you like.
  • 393d Bombardment Squadron: , without airplanes, needs support.
  • No need to pipe 504th Bombardment Group. If you insist, the unit was the 504th Bombardment Group, Very Heavy not the 504th Bombardment Group (Very Heavy)
  • Another taste item: I'd demote the tail numbers of the C-54s to a note (or put them in a table).
  • 216th Base Unit (multiple references): Unit designation was "216th AAF Base Unit (Special)". There has been substantial discussion of this unit on [ArmyAirForce.com] and its interface with the 509th, but I'm not sure doing anything other than correcting the unit designation would be permitted as not WP:OR
  • 1027th Air Materiel Squadron: Capitalize "Squadron" Part of proper noun
  • The 390th did not have an "Air Base Support Squadron", it had a "Headquarters and Base Service Squadron." If your source uses this exact term, it should be lowercased.
  • "basic support unit" and "basic support functions" in same sentence.
  • The 320th did not officially deploy. It did, see Maurer, Combat Squadrons, p. 393.
    • Don't have that book, but I'll take your word for it. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valuable resource for USAF units, it is available online at several locations, one of which is in this citation template: Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6. LCCN 70605402. OCLC 72556.
  • "engine-mounted front collector rings." Without definition is Jargon.
  • "remained based at Wendover" to "remained at Wendover"
  • Quonset huts: Seems like both words should be capitalized or neither.
    • No, the capitalisation is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'for the 509th is winning the war" to "for the . . ."
  • Fat Man inconsistencies mentioned above. My understanding that the weapon actually dropped was a one-off. Although Mk.3s were essentially the same weapon, the differed from the weapon used by the 509th.
    • It was not. The bombs used at Bikini were identical to the Nagasaki bomb, and the post-war Mark III was essentially the same. The Manhattan Project documents refer to the Nagasaki and Bikini bombs as Mark IIIs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple linking of pumpkin bomb. And when linked should not also have quotation marks around the name.

--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, PD attribution present

  • "Unknown" title should use endashes, as should Craven, FN89, FN67 and similar
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • FN6: should include full publication title, which should be italicized
  • FN30, 50, 60, 63: page formatting
  • What makes IMDB a high-quality reliable source?
    • Well, it is used only to point out the casts of different movies. This could be sourced to the movies themselves. If it is a problem, I am happy to remove the entire Depictions section
  • 404 error
    • Replaced with another link. All links are reported as okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Coster-Mullen: possible to include more specific location?

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported this article's A-class nomination, and after reviewing the subsequent changes think that the FA criteria are now also met. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support- No alt text on any of the photos from Tinian. Otherwise looks good. GregJackP Boomer! 12:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-USGov). Sources and authors provided.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/509th_Composite_Group/archive1&oldid=756281628"