Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress edit

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that this article could benefit from further evaluation, as it is the intention of some editors of the article to proceed eventually to FAC. Additionally I feel that it has reached a level of quality where this level of consideration is now a worthwhile use of time and effort, yet the article is likely to benefit from such an intensive lookover by multiple individuals. Kyteto (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: the article states in the section on production and upgrades that the work culminated "in the B-53G and B-52H". That should be B-52G, correct? Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, {{inflation}} should be used in the cost table. There are a number of citation needed tags that I added that need to be addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 inflated costs in addition to the actual 1955 costs? Replacing the 1955 seems almost like hiding them to me. -fnlayson (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you could do is add another row in the table for the flyaway costs in 2010 dollars. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a large number of links that redirect, and a few that link to disambig pages. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Sorry, just a couple of quick ones as I am very short of time at the moment.
    • there are a couple of citation needed tags in the article, are you able to deal with those?
    • in the last sentence of the lead, there are some citations inside the bracket. Per WP:PAIC they should go outside the bracket. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ext links work (no action required);
    • alt text could be added to the article per WP:ALT (this is only a suggestion and is not a requirement);
    • can you please the ISBN for "Lake, Jon. "Variant Briefing: Boeing B-52 Stratofortress: Part 1"? The Advisor tool is showing that it might not be correct;
I can't get the code to execute properly. I've tried punching it several times, it just won't work as its supposed to despite the fact it is exactly identical to the dozen or so times it did work, such as the book directly above it. I cannot get it to engage properly. Kyteto (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, there was an extra number, so I attempted a fix there. I hope I didn't make it so it's the wrong ISBN now. :) Airplaneman ✈ 17:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you got the right ISBN. Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • there are two disambig links [1]. As they would probably just point back to this article, it is probably best to just remove the links IMO;
Those links are in the notices at the beginning of the article, which states the following:
"B-52" redirects here. For other uses, see B52 (disambiguation). <- that is one of the links
"BUFF" redirects here. For other uses, see Buff. <- and this is the other
I think they should be kept. As noted above, I have fixed the rest of the disambiguation links. Airplaneman ✈ 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair call and I agree. Apologies for not investigating further as I should have been able to work this one out for myself. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Bibliography section, in this title I think there is a typo: "Boeing's Timeless Deterrent, Part 1: B-52 Stratfortress – From Conception to Hanoi". Should it be "Stratofortress", rather than "Stratfortess"? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is a very solid article, but I think that it may need a bit more work to reach A class. My comments are:
    • To whom did William McPherson Allen appeal to keep the B-52 design contract active, and why was this successful?
    • "The Model 464-35 design was a proposal whose powerplant configuration that, unknown to either party, paralleled what the Tupolev design bureau was doing in the Soviet Union three years later in mid-July 1951" - this is confusingly written as the tense is unclear. It might be easier to just say that Tupolev did similar work three years later.
    • The 'Production and improvements' section is much too short - is there really nothing to say about the process of building these aircraft over several decades? (eg, where were they built, what as the annual output of aircraft, were there any very notable successes or failures during the production run(s), etc).
    • What motivated the 'Big Four' program? - it would appear that the answer is concerns about the B-52s ability to penetrate and survive in SAM-protected airspace but this isn't clearly stated
    • The 'Fuel research platform' section seems much too long and detailed given that this level of coverage isn't provided to the other experimental uses of B-52s.
    • The coverage of the B-52s Cold War nuclear deterrent mission seems rather brief given that this is was the main use for the aircraft. It would be interesting if this section discussed how the aircraft would have been used in the event of war in greater detail (and how this changed over time).
    • "Over the next months, B-52Gs operating from bases at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom; Moron AB, Spain; and the island of Diego Garcia flew low-altitude bombing missions" seems a bit odd given that the Gulf War only lasted for a few weeks and the next sentence states that the aircraft were shifted to high-altitude bombing after three nights Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make it clear that I'm standing by for further instructions, I believe I have effectively addressed the concerns and corrections desired so far. Kyteto (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—a solid, well-written article. Airplaneman ✈ 22:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress&oldid=382636849"