Talk:Loring Air Force Base
Loring Air Force Base is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.
Reviewers: To start the review process,to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try this talk page.)
|Loring Air Force Base received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Loring Air Force Base was nominated as a good article in the Warfare category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: February 15, 2013
|A fact from Loring Air Force Base appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 November 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Double Cantilever Hangar
35 years later, I finally find out what the "DC" stands for in what was called "the DC Hangar". Hatcat 05:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Loring AFB "UFO" sighting.
No helicopters landed in the WSA during this incident. I was there, inside the fence, working as a 463 in "The Plant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzapper (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Loring Air Force Base/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of note, I may periodically mass-add some more text, although I will also try to warn you before I do so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, just leave a note here if you do. Keep in mind, though, that at 49kb, this article is already pushing the limit recommended by WP:PAGESIZE; if you add a lot more text, I'd suggest also trimming some of the text that's there. I'm planning to my first readthrough of the article in this morning or afternoon, so more comments soon... -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
On just a first skim of the article, it looks well sourced and thorough. My main concern at first glance is the amount of redundancy I see, both on the paragraph and sentence level. For example, the history section mentions three times that the base is named after Charles J. Loring; two of these should be deleted. Other sections are needlessly wordy. See here for an example of how some of the sentences can be compressed without losing any meaning: . These two factors combined with the level of detail make me concerned that the article doesn't currently meet criteria 1a (clear and concise) and 3b (stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail), but we can work on that.
- At five paragraphs, the lead is too long per WP:LEAD. I'd suggest trimming it a bit throughout. For example, the two mentions that the base was co-located next to Caribou AF Station seem excessive, as do smaller details like the long list of services maintained by the 42 BW. Addressed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- "The base became one of the more strategic bases during the Cold War, due to its strategic location" -- Lots of repetition in this sentence-- how about "the base had high strategic value during the Cold War due to its location"?
- The "Overview" section is unneeded and should probably just be deleted; the purpose of the lead is to provide this overview, making this section redundant.
- Consider using abbreviations for commonly repeated terms here like Department of Defense (DoD), US, USAF, SAC, AFB, etc.
- An example of a moment with very excessive detail is the long description of the area high school. A particularly odd detail is the absence of fraternities and sororities--does any US high school have these? It seems excessive detail to mention what courses or facilities were available at the nearby high school, considering that it wasn't even on the base. I'm not actually convinced the high school should be in the article at all.
- The footnote "Sources say that a "Richard E. Chapman" was the commander, but this person never existed and Robert is cited on many sources as the commander" needs a citation to avoid seeming original research.
- The UFO section seems overly detailed for a trivial incident mentioned in one source; I would suggest making much greater use of summary here.
- " In addition to Loring, the stations at Mather Air Force Base in California, and Andersen Air Force Base in Guam were closed. Additionally, the station at Barksdale Air Force Base was scaled back. " -- seems off-topic
- "The base was briefly mentioned in the 1983 movie WarGames, although the film erroneously lists the base as being home to the 43rd Bombardment Wing." -- Does any secondary source mention this as important? Seems like another detail that could be cut.
- "Part of this was due to changing times in the Air Force, as modernizations were taking place throughout the country. " -- redundant with next sentence, which says the same thing more specifically; suggest cutting
- "On March 6, 1955, a B-36 Peacemaker crashed and burned in a snowbank at Loring. All crewmembers were able to escape unharmed" -- should this be moved to the second paragraph on non-fatal accidents?
- "Operation Head Start would eventually lead to Operation Chrome Dome." -- adding just a touch of context on this operation would be helpful. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I addressed the first two bullets. The "Overview" part is something that is generally duplicated on the modern ones, so if you want, I can remove that. In terms of abbreviations, I guess that might be because I'm against shortening things (it's probably a college thing), but if you want I can also do that. I moved the high school stuff to its own page, since I guess I was writing it more for that but was unsure at the time of if it was still active. I've cited the Chapman part with both names, although since Chapman does actually have a Wikipedia article, it may be moot. In terms of the UFO thing, do you want me to include the official report and use that instead, since I know it probably mentions something, but I've been too lazy to read the entire thing right now. For the WarGames thing, there are sources that mention it, although the degree to which you want it cited (i.e. the mistake or the fact was in the movie in the first place) would be good to know. Other than that, everything else has been addressed, so I look forward to your reply in this regard. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so slow to answer you here; for some reason, I thought I had, but I see now that wasn't the case.
- For the WarGames issue, it's not so much that I question the veracity of the claim so much as whether it's worth including (a passing mention in a minor film). You're more familiar with the sources than I am, though, so it's totally your call based on how prominently other works about the base emphasize this.
- For the UFO, I'm not sure including primary source material would help. Again, it's not so much that I doubt the detail of the given source, but simply whether it's worth including so much detail about a minor incident from one source; it seems like this incident could easily be summarized in one paragraph rather than four, since it had no consequences.
- Again, kudos for all your work on this one! Your efforts are much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing concerns
On examination, I'm concerned that sections of the article closely paraphrase this source:  Though the wording has been altered in most places (though not all--phrases like "the base's bowling center was twenty two lanes and one of the most modern in the area" appear intact in both sources), the article follows it point-for-point in some sections, including nearly every detail it does and in the same order. This becomes very problematic when it happens for several paragraphs in a row. Paraphrasing is always a gray area and a judgement call, but considering how trivial this source's details are (the high school in town also taught Spanish and French; the bowling alley was one of the area's more modern; the cafeteria had specials every week), I'd say that in this case it's become a problem that needs to be addressed.
WP:PARAPHRASE has some good advice on how to address this problem, but my basic suggestion would be to rewrite the sections based on this website to draw on other sources as well. If there are no other sources for this information, that suggests that the information simply isn't important, and should be introduced only in the most basic summary. Consider summing up the website's information with one sentence per paragraph, instead of one paragraph per paragraph.
- I'll get on this, as I actually did not suspect that this would be the section with the issue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
A lot of good research has gone into this article, and it's clearly on its way to GA status. I've listed examples of all these above, I think, but here are the broader recommendations I have to get the article the rest of the way to GA:
- Clean up the close paraphrasing from ; summarize this source rather than superficially altering its wording
- Make the lead section conform to WP:LEAD (max. 4 paragraphs); merge the lead with the overview, as these should be the same
- Reduce repetition throughout the article
- Make the prose more concise and make better use of summary style throughout the article (using abbreviations would also help with this)
- Give a thorough copyedit--I've cleaned up some spelling errors, but haven't yet done a thorough sweep
I hope this helps! Since these problems are fairly extensive, I'm closing the review for now. However, I'm confident that it's going to get to GA with some revision. Thanks for all your contributions to it, and don't hesitate to ping me if you have any questions about my comments here. (I'll keep watching here, too.) Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I was stationed at this base when I was enlisted. One fact that I remember that was that the base did NOT have an Airmen's Club. There was an Officer's Club and an NCO Club only. Airmen -- like myself -- had to use the NCO Club.
Another thing I remember was that unlike most other bases, Loring AFB did not have an internal transportation system like most bases did. No buses.
As these are personal recollections, I did not think it appropriate to enter them into the main article. -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
Both the introduction and the body state Loring was the largest base in Strategic Air Command. Presumably, this is based on the size of the installation, stated at around 14,000 acres. The Beale Air Force Base article says Beale has 23,000 acres. Moreover, prior to the late 1970s, Beale was even larger -- a good deal of the installation was sold by the government at the time. Therefore, B2=n The source cited for the statement in "Origins" (the only citation for the entire paragraph), expressly states it was not the largest installation in SAC, so B1=n. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Lineagegeek I think this was meant in reference to facilities. Beale is indeed larger, but Loring has a larger literal footprint. This link certainly states that Loring is more average in that respect. Regardless, I have fixed the wording, so it is correct. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)