Talk:Mitsubishi A6M Zero

Most famous model?

I don't know much about the Japanese airplanes of WW2... anyways. Which colors were mostly used for the A6M Zero? I suppose that the picture shown first in the article should be of the most common color variation. Ran4 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Korean zeros

In paragraph three: "Recently the North Korean Air Force bought 16 Zeros to be used for ground attack." True or vandalism? Buyo 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Idiocy.

Only a moron would credit the idea.Mark Lincoln 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First US shoot-down

From the article, "The first American pilot known to be shot down by a Zero was Lt. George Whiteman on December 7 1941." The first American. So what? -- Taku

So what?

The truth was that the Japanese pilots had more experience.Mark Lincoln 00:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually so what, this has no relevance to the article. Maybe the battle but not here. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Folding wings

I removed the recent change by an anon that the folding wings were necessary because JN policy was to store planes below decks. The reason for the removal was that this, I think, should be self evident; the need to take planes below decks is common to almost all aircraft carriers since that is where maintenance is performed. —Morven 03:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I have often inspected a Zero operated by the CAF.

Where did the wings fold?Mark Lincoln 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

At the end. In fact in Model 32 of the Reisen or Zero-Sen these were eliminated, giving this variant its square wingtips compared with the other variants. Dirk P Broer (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming

American pilots often misused, or were confused by, US code names, but "Tojo" was the code for the Japanese Army Airforce's "Ki-44" fighter "Shoki," a totally different aircraft--although both were low-winged monoplanes with radial engines. Incidentally, the JAAF's "Oscar" (Ki-43 Hayabusa) often was misidentified as a "Zero," more understandably than with the Shoki, since the Ki-43 was very similar in silhouette and flight characteristics (albeit less well-armed.) Sometimes the Ki-43 is referred to in US pilot biographies as an "Army Zero," a non sequiter as the Zero was a naval aircraft. For example, USMC ace "Pappy" Boyington refers to "Army" Zeroes and "Navy" Zeroes in his biography, and asserts that the "Tojo" is a "souped-up version of the Zero." As long as "Pappy" was able to shoot them down in droves, it clearly didn't matter if he got the model numbers right or not!! I think the non-viability of the Zero as a combat aircraft in the latter part of WW2 has been overstated, given that when Saburo Sakai returned to combat in 1945 in a Zero he scored very effectively against Hellcats and Mustangs, despite being blind in one eye. Even as late as 1945, too, there were still a lot of allied pilots flying P-40's and F4f Wildcats. And even the later aircraft could usually not dogfight with a Zero or an Oscar. IMHO it wasn't until the F8F Bearcat was introduced that the US had a fighter that TRULY was superior in most ways to the Zero, and the Bearcat didn't see combat in WW2. In the hands of a skilled pilot, the Zero was still a menace even in 1945. It still surpassed, for example, the FM-2 Wildcat and the P40N. [John P. Strang Tue. 6:48 pm PST July 20]

You're presuming the objective is dogfight. Boelke & Chennault both demo, the idea is to kill him before he knows he's been fired on, not get in a fight with him. For that, F4Us, P-38s, & P-47s were perfect: hi speed & heavy firepower, as well as the ability to climb or dive away at will. The only reason "the Zero was still a menace" was because only masters were left alive.

On a separate ish, let me note, first A6M ace, 13 Sept 1940, was F/Sgt Yamashita Koshiro. Trekphiler 03:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're both right. The Zeke was chosen for Kamikaze attacks as it had the best chance of getting through. It could still outmaneuver the Hellcat. And the way for Corsairs and Hellcats to fight it was not to dogfight, but use the strengths of their planes to get the drop on the Zeke. Kablammo 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it wasn't until the F8F Bearcat was introduced that the US had a fighter that TRULY was superior in most ways to the Zero, "

There are plenty of dead Japanese pilots who might disagree.

The amazing agile motions of the Zero were deliberately reduced as airspeed increased. It was a structural trade-off, as was the decision to sacrifice armor and self-sealing tanks were given up for range.

I am not disparaging Hirikoshi's work. I am pointing out that once American pilots achieved the same number of combat hours as Japanese they were more than able to use the supposedly 'inferior" F4F to advantage. By the time the F6F and F4U were available the situation was reversed.

An American pilot was far more likely to achieve some 300 hours than a Japanese.Mark Lincoln 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No Bearcat ever fought a Zero. The first F8Fs were aboard a carrier enroute to the Pacific theater when the war ended. ----

Images

Felix C-- I deleted a picture and then found out that you had just added it. It strongly resembles another image on the site (which I think you added as well) and didn't see the need for two similar images. Kablammo 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Chinese Zeros

Anonymous user 71.146.141.240 has added a substantial paragraph on the alleged manufacture and use of the Zero by Chinese Nationalist and Communist forces in the late 1940s. I don't claim to be an expert, but I've never once heard or seen any such thing from any other source. I suspect that the entire paragraph is deliberate misinformation and should be deleted until external sources are cited. In particular, the initial claim that the Chinese built 300,000 such Zeros (which would make it the most manufactured aircraft in history by a factor of 10 over its closest rival Ilyushin_Il-2!) casts doubt on anything written by this contributor. I've deleted all such content. -- Paul Richter 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Zeros

The deleted paragraph concerning the production of A6Ms in China and their large-scale combat use in Thailand and China was completely absurd; there was no truth in it at all. According to the RTAF Museum in Bangkok, the Thais did use a few Zeros postwar but they vanished within a few years as spare parts ran out. There was no civil war in Thailand of the type described during the post-war years. I suppose it is possible that a few left-behind A6Ms got used by Nationalists and Communists (Janes Fighting Ships lists quite a few ex-Japanese warships surviving until the early 1960s so its possible some old aircraft hung on as well) but the idea that the type actually went into large-scale production is ridiculous. I suspect the author was trolling.

Stuart Slade 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Surviving Zeros

Here (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2004/Sampler/index.html) it says that there is only one surviving Zero with it's original Sakae engine in flyable condition. The others were Pratt & Whitney powered (not original) at this particular show. I think its notable to mention this only surviving Zero. Zchris87v 06:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More on the "Chinese" A6M

The bit about the A6M and China re-appeared (or a section thereof) claiming that both the PRC and RoC used their A6Ms until 1956. I deleted it. As far as I know captured Japanese aircraft were used by China immediately postwar but they were replaced by the time China was taken over by the Communists. Other Japanese aircraft were used by the Thais (Ki-27s and Ki-43s) and briefly by the French in Indochina (Ki-43s and E-13As) but they all vanished from service within a few months.

Stuart Slade 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

I do not know much about the details of WWII-era technology... As far as I can tell, this article says everything that needs to be said. It has an infobox, it talks about the development of the various variant models, and it has pictures. LordAmeth 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hughes H-1

Should it be mentioned that Howard Hughes believed that the Zero was derived from his H-1 Racer?74.121.138.53 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hughes thought many things. Got a credible source to cite? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The allegation that the Zero was copied from the H-1 has been around ever since the Zero appeared, and is still contentious. I think it should be addressed in the article, though. -- Paul Richter 07:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jiro Hirokish would - did - have a big laugh at the suggestion that either the H-1 or the Vought 173 was the prototype of the Zero.

It is very revealing of Americans in 1942 that they simply could not admit that 'squint eyed-can copy only' Japanese could design an airplane.Mark Lincoln 00:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• That comment is a biased as the bias it attempts to "reveal", and paints with a very broad brush. Unfair. - BilCat (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it seems close to the H1 see: Hughes H1 http://www.airminded.net/h1/h1.html Zero http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html Pictures of H1 by Japanese http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/proctor.htm Arydberg (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Horikoshi discusses (and dismisses) the "copy-cat" theories in Eagles of Mitsubishi--Phyllis1753 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Et seq.?

2 things. Since when do Nakajima's A4N & Mitsubishi's A5M belong in the same sequence? And where are contemporary Bf-109, I-16, P-38, & F4U? Trekphiler 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The designation sequence is that applied by the user (in this case the Imperial Navy), not the manufacturer. Similarly, Army aircraft follow the "Ki-" sequence where the Nakajima Ki-44 is followed by the Kawasaki Ki-45.

I think "Comparable aircraft" should mean more than just being contemporary; in this case it should be limited to single-engined light fighters with roughly the same performance. So the P-38 and much more powerful F4U wouldn't be included, nor the weaker I-16. As for those already listed, I don't think the XP-77, which is in a class of its own, is comparable either. -- Paul Richter 09:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Divergence of trajectories

Recent addition of the image showing divergence of 20mm shells vs 7.7mm bullets begs the question: is there a Wiki article that contains discussion about the general Japanese fighter pilot practice of shooting off a stream of 7.7mm rounds to check range before opening up with the 20mm for the kill? Several US pilots have written that this practice often allowed for avoidance of the 20mm entirely, as they were warned ahead of time by the 7.7mm tracers or by hearing some of the 7.7mm rounds hit home.

The divergence image doesn't show the slower speed of the 20mm round. With a slower speed and different trajectory, it's hard to believe that Japanese pilots were taught to use the smaller round as a measurement tool prior to the big round--the two rounds had nearly nothing in common. Binksternet 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I drew the image, to answer your question I don't think I've seen anything on Wikipedia about the practice of ranging with the 7.7s. Understanding that some pilots might have, Saburo Sakai said they never did as standard procedure.

Interviewer: Did you bracket the enemy first with MG, then fire your 20mm cannon when he was in range?
Saburo Sakai: No, no no that was never true.

I was thinking of animating bullets to illustrate differences in velocity between the two. Fast or slow though, hitting a target with guns that don't converge is bound to be tricky unless the range is extremely close (which has it's own perils). I wonder if P-38 pilots did anything similar with their .50cal/12.7mm and 20mm combo? Anynobody 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how Sakai couldn't have been aware of the observed Japanese practice over Rabaul and environs... At any rate, there were many different skill levels of pilots in the theater and there were regional variations that stemmed from influential local instruction. P-38 pilots were no different: some registered hits with 50 cal before firing the 20 mm, some didn't. Others fired all their guns all the time. There was even a group of Pacific P-38 jockeys that decided to get rid of ALL of their tracer rounds after concluding that fast Japanese reactions to nearby tracer fire were cheating them out of aerial victories. The tactic worked for them, their group included some of the top scorers. Binksternet 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One reason why P-38 pilots could be more casual about which ammo they used is that either choice was pretty damn effective. Not true for the Zeke. Binksternet 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As you said each pilot has their own methods and tricks; I think Sakai meant that they didn't train pilots to do it and he didn't either. (I think I remember another interview with him where he expressed annoyance at the differing calibers and their ballistic tendencies.)

I haven't heard what you mention about P-38 pilots nixing tracers from their ammo, though have read some about Dick Bong and Thomas McGuire (not only the top P-38 scorers but of all American aviators still to this day.) Describing how they used the Lightning's speed for hit and run attacks. Anynobody 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may... the difference in speed between the 7.7mm and 20mm bursts shows clearly on the image: it is the divergence itself. Regardless of their masses, all rounds would fall at the same rate (neglecting air friction which is probably low on the vertical axis, given the speed of the fall). So if the 20mm rounds are lower than the 7.7mm at the left of the image, it must be because they have had more time to fall, which entails that they take longer to cross to the left of the image. Rama (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the Swedish FFVS J 22 a comparible aircraft

Introduced in 1943 to the swedish air force the FFVS J 22 seems to be in the same class as the Zero.

Zero replicas?

Are there any companies currently producing replicas of the Zero, but with better motors and equipment?

Or is the plane's design unsafe by modern standards? 216.99.219.204 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Long Range Fighters

It appears, according to TV's military/history channels; that the A6M Zero was conducting combat sorties from Rabaul to Guadalcanal in 1942, round trip. This equates to flying a distance from Great Britain to Italy (round trip?) if these missions had been performed in the ETO (European Theater of Operations). If this is true, then the P51 Mustang began flying long range missions nearly two years after the A6M had already performed such flights.

Both the P51 and the A6M had similiar maximum ranges, using external fuel tanks; approximately 1,600 miles for both aircraft.

It should be stated that the A6M was also a carrier aircraft, especially designed for aircraft carrier operations; having folding wing tips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Zero's non-superiority

Sakai:thinking its more noble to use a sword than a gun is stupid when you have a gun and the other guy doesn't. The two "Type 99 cannon suffered from lower muzzle velocity (1970 ft/s) and rate of fire (520 rounds/min)," per wiki which also explains divergence somewhat. In theory the 20mm cannon would do more damage per round that struck, but with lower rate of fire you'd get fewer hits. And there is 60 rounds per cannon. Energy is mv² so 2/3 muzzle velocity is 45% of the energy per hit. The two 30 caliber guns (or 7.62 mm standard) have a higher velocity (2,375 ft/s), and 500 rounds per gun. The effective range of the cannon was half that of the Type 97 machine gun. American planes had 12.7mm (50 caliber) M2 Browning machine gun, times four times 450 rounds per gun (newer planes carrying more rounds) firing minimum 750 rounds per minute each, muzzle velocity about 2900 feet per second (300 mph airplane is doing about 450 feet per second). Japanese pilots often failed to lead their target when making an oblique shot. Note also the aileron information. Whether the ailerons were purposely derated to avoid tearing the plane apart at high G forces or an artifact of the trim tabs used, the dogfighting ability to turn inside of Allied aircraft disappeared at higher speeds. Likewise the equating performance of a Zero on patrol duty with a Kamikaze carrying a 1000 pound bomb is incorrect. Shjacks45 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, you are missing a vital point. The muzzle energy of a machine gun must be sufficient to propel the bullet to the target and also to cause the bullet to do damage when it gets there. A cannon fires exploding shells. The damage to a thinskinned aircraft from a 20mm grenade is almost exclusively from the detonation. A 5g load of TNT (eq to that of a japanese HE-I) would yield ~20 kJ plus muzzle energy of 25560 (projectile weight 71g V0 600 m/s). Muzzle energy for a .50BMG is roughly 18kJ. But even this does not take into account that the .50BMG is inert and wil only punch a hole straight through te target while the 20mm round will blow a hole in an aircraft fuselage a foot across. [David] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.164.222 (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Mitsubishi A6M Zero, and after reading the discussion above and the discussion below. Also the numerous alternate names used in the article itself as well as the names from the previous moves from this name and the aircraft naming guideline. I also was influenced by the large number of inbound links to this name and while less conclusive, the consistency of this name with that used by similar Mitsubishi aircraft. There did not appear to be any opposition to a move, the discussion was over a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A6M Zero → Mitsubishi A6M — That should be the proper name of the article similarly to Nakajima B5N and Aichi D3A.  Dr. Loosmark  12:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

• Comment WP:COMMONNAME suggests this should be Zero (fighter) or Mitsubishi Zero. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It would if there were not other guidelines governing aircraft article titles as at WP:AIR Naming Conventions. These take precedence over the generic WP-wide guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support for proposed name. The WP:AIR guidelines now allow the Manufacturer-Designation-Name format, so Mitsubishi A6M Zero]] would be allowable, as the "Zero" name is univerally associated with the aircraft, not just in the US. Note that if Nakajima B5N and Aichi D3A have official names, or universal nicknames (not Allied code names), then they should be moved also. - BilCat (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to Mitsubishi A6M Zero per BilCat. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question on Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

A question has arisen on the Zero and IJN Kaga, now at FAC:

Was the Zero carrier-qualified on Kaga in 1940? See discussion at the end of Talk:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Kaga#Update.

Any assistance would be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

T-7178 Aluminium alloy

1. As far as I can discover, 7178 alloy (with 6.8% zinc) was first introduced in 1951 and seems unlikely to have been used in Zeros. Also T-7178 doesn't appear to be a meaningful name for a 7000 series alloy, whereas (for example) 7178-T6 is.

2. The alloy used in the Zero's construction is closer to 7075 alloy (originally 75S, 5.5% zinc), as used in the Boeing B-29. This was developed later in the war from 76S by Alcoa in the US, originally used in aircraft propellors; it suffered from stress-corrosion-cracking, which was overcome by adding small amounts of chromium.

3. I have added the link to 7075 aluminium alloy, and a ref to a journal published by Sumitomo Metal Industries, who originally developed it in 1936. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorProphet (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Defense industry difficulties

I removed a bit about the general difficulties faced by defense industry manufacturers who must balance the need to make sales with the need to predict strategic relations among nations. I don't think this bit is at all appropriate to the article about the Zero. However, the Zero can be used as an example at the article about defense contractors. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's a good way to look at it. But I think there should be some small one sentence here that links to that discussion. I'll see about changing this. — ¾-10 18:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole Eugene Wilson section can be removed it appears to be mainly one mans speculation and is really given undue weight in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the whole section gives way, way, way too much prominence to the theory that the Zero was in some way a copy of the Vought V-143 (or any other American aircraft). This theory has been long discredited - the A6M was an original design and no-one in there right mind would choose to use the awful Vought, which had already been rejected by the USAAC as the basis of a modern fighter.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilson was comparing his biplane, the V-142, with the monoplane Zero (!). I just don't see how he can say that the one was the spitting image of the other. He also says that the Zero copied elements from Northrop. How could the Zero be a spitting image of the Chance-Vought V-142 if it has Northrop-style wheel wells? He's reaching. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably he means the Vought V-143, an improved version of the V-141, which in-turn was based on the Northrop 3A fighter, the design of which Wilson had purchased from Northrop (against the advice of his engineers), and which had been rejected as unairworthy. The V-143 was the aircraft that was (fully legally) sold to Japan in 1937.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm generally on board with you guys at this point. I do think that the mention of Eugene Wilson's allegations (citing Fernandez 1983) should be kept (because it's relevant to the topic of the development of the Zero [or the alleged development storyline]), *but* the paragraph should now end with the discrediting of it, if anyone is able to write a sentence exlaining it. I wasn't aware that it was discredited, but that's only because I'm no expert on the topic. As for the general discussion of the inherent problems of a for-profit arms industry, I have moved the discussion of that topic to that article (after beginning to write it in the defense contractor article and then realizing that it was forked from the arms industry article. Thanks, everyone, for the good faith all around. Later, — ¾-10 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Still dont think any of it is notable enough to the Zero to be mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wing and fuselage constructed in one piece?

This assertion is triggering a big "Hmmm" with me. I don't have my sources handy, but my recollection is that the wing and fuselage were in fact separate constructions. However, the wing was built as a single unit that was also the main fuel tank, and the top of the wing was the floor of the cockpit. This was sufficient to give structural strength. --Yaush (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jim Rearden writes on page 22 of Cracking the Zero Mystery that "the wing was integral to the center section of the fuselage, thus doing away with the heavy fittings needed for attaching wings to fuselage. The fuselage separated behind the trailing edge of the wing where two fuselage rings bolted together, making it possible to easily get at the cockpit for repairs."

I don't know if Rearden is contradicted by other sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Aeroelastic problems of the Zero

The decreasing roll performance of the Zero as indicated airspeed increases, is often described in terms of " stiffening " of the controls. This is the way it seemed to pilots. In fact there is ample reason to believe that the primary cause was that, due to the low torsional stiffness of the light weight wing stucture,as speed increases, aileron displacement twists the opposite sides of the wing to produce a rolling moment in opposition to that produced by the ailerons themselves. This phenomenon known as reversal of aileron control- associated with it is an aileron reversal speed at which displacement of the ailerons produces no rolling moment at all. Tests of torsional stiffness of zero wings conducted during World War II verified that substantial reductions in roll effectiveness would occur in the zero as 300 miles an hour indicated airspeed was approached. This low stiffness should not be confused with low strength. The Zero strength under manuevering flight loads ( g's) equalled or exceeded that of Allied fighters.

The designer of the Zero, jiro Horikoshi, in his book, " Eagles of Mitsubishi ' and other writings and interviews, never explicitly refered to the aileron reversal problem. However, in his book, Horikoshi recounts catastrophic accidents that were after exhaustive investigation to be attributable to wing-torsion, aileron, tab flutter. Among the parameters leading to low flutter speeds is low torsinal wing stiffness.'Hirokoshi in his book dismissed the P-40 as inferior to the Zero in every way except for dive speed. In fact the P-40 had much higher speed than the Zero in level flight at low altitude, and, of course in roll and maneuvering at high speeds. The Zero could outmaneuver the P-40 and other U.S. fighters only if they could be lured into engaging at lower speeds favorable to the Zero. Of course when first faced with the Zero, most Allied pilots didn't know these things,Although the Flying Tigers from the begining adopted no-low speed dogfight tactics. However, the flutter speed at which the Zero wing destructed was about 360 miles per hour, the level flight high speed of the P-40

To deal with the flutter problem,in mid 1941, the Japanese stiffened the wing of the Zero some and placarded the manximum dive speed to about 400 miles an hour. By contrast thr P-40 terminal dive velocity exceeded 480 miles per hour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogenes10 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Finding refs for the content contributed by 24.28.29.194

I just want to note here that although the content recently contributed by 24.28.29.194 had to be removed, at least for now, because it makes too many non-general-knowledge, specific claims to go unreferenced, several of its themes jibe with what I have heard on TV about the naval aircraft development arc of the Pacific war. So 24.28.29.194, what I'd like to say by way of encouragement is that if you can work on citing sources with inline citations, your content has real promise. Don't take the reversion personally; lack of refs is really the only limiting factor. — ¾-10 01:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)