Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark[edit]

I've been working on adding details and references for this article on and off over the past couple of years. The article is complete and most everything is referenced now. I am seeking review comments to facilitate further improvement of this article. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

It's great to see so much work has gone into improving this article. My suggestions for how it could be further improved are:

  • The one paragraph sections in the Development section should be combined
  • Some of the article is written in the present tense, which is a bit jarring at times now that all F-111s have been retired
  • Some material still isn't referenced (for example, the 'Similar swing wing aircraft' section)
  • It doesn't seem accurate to say that "The U.S. Navy's F-111B was replaced by the F-14 Tomcat" given that the B model never entered service - I'd suggest something like 'the role which was intended for the F-111B was later filled by the F-14 Tomcat'.
  • The operational history section seems to be unduly focused on the aircraft's combat service - its role with Strategic Air Command should be covered
  • The article doesn't really cover the serious technical problems which delayed the F-111's entry into service by several years
  • The coverage of the F-111C could be expanded a bit, even though there's a sub-article on this (for instance, their important role in Australia's defence planning and the upgrades which the RAAF implemented in the 1990s seem relevant in a general article on the aircraft) Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, thanks. And I've been working on them. I have 4 or 5 F-111 books and there is very little of the SAC use of the FB-111As. I'll look some more and see if I can add something of substance. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert[edit]

  • Good work so far. As Nick points out, there are a few sentences that should have references added. I will list the sentences where I think they are needed if you wish to take it to GA and beyond:
    • In the External ordnance subsection: "Although all F-111s could carry laser-guided bombs, only the F-111F and F-111C with the Pave Tack pod can self-designate targets. Other variants can drop laser-guided weapons with the aid of another laser designator";
    • in the F-111K subsection, "As a substitute, the RAF purchased Blackburn Buccaneers and F-4 Phantom IIs instead. These would eventually be replaced by the Panavia Tornado, another variable-geometry wing design";
    • in the FB-111A/F-111G subsection, "They were retired in 2007" (refering to Australia's F-111Gs);
    • in the EF-111A Raven subsection, "U.S. Navy and Marine EA-6B Prowlers took on the electronic warfare role for the Air Force";
  • in the FB-111A/F-111G subsection, there appears to be a slight grammatical error here: "The FB-111A was to selected in 1965 to replace the elegant but troublesome supersonic Convair B-58 Hustler and early models of the B-52". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had added cite needed tags to some uncited sentences. I would have cited them instead if I readily could have. Other uncited sentences were not controversial and seemed to be almost common knowledge. Anyway, I'll work more on these, but will need some help in places (general comment, not directed at you). I had been missing the extra word in FB-111A selected sentence. That's fixed now. Is good to have other eyes on this article. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko[edit]

Very good job. Most of my comments are minor petty things that should be easy to fix.

  • The lede has some inline citations. Since the lede should summerize the article there is typically no need for citations there because the material in the article should contain the citation.
  • I recommend moving some of the images around. There are too many on the right IMO.
  • It appears as though you are using shortened references for the majority but then you have a few such as 2, 9, 24, 25 and 84 that show the full details. I recommend using 1 consistent format.
  • I recommend adding alt text for the images
  • There are a few MOS related suggestions per [1] that I recommend taking a look at but I'm not sure if any apply. There are so many measurements in the article I didn't check them all myself.
  • Also per the above link there are a couple of DAB pages that need to be fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyteto[edit]

  • I judge the article to be almost ready for a GA-Review, if that is what you would wish to put it through. I would make sure that the book citations are all folded into the Bibliography for the long-hand and that the shorthand citation style is used throughout, as noted above. Additionally, ensuring that all references meet the terms of WP:RS would be a route for enhancement, Joe Baugher is a useful source but certainly at the FA-level, his work becomes uncitable as it doesn't meet the requirements for absolute verifiability. I don't have a problem with it staying as it is, but where possible I'd recommend substituting with books such as Knaak. Kyteto (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further thought from studying and doing some work on the article itself; the Operational History seems kind of skant, compared with the lengthy technical details. Perhaps there isn't much more detail in this area to add, but if there is it would be good. Kyteto (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few F-111 books and am using them to replace the Baugher references a little at a time. My main priorities when I started working on this article was providing a more complete history and getting the existing text cited. I'll try to add notable details to the operational history where I can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • I've got some notes on the lead; hope this helps.
  • In a caption: "in Navarre, Spain in": "in Navarre, Spain, in". See WP:MHCL#commas.
  • "was a medium-range ... that also fills the roles": "filled"
  • "Developed in the 1960s by General Dynamics and first entered service in 1967 with the United States Air Force.": not a sentence
  • "ordered the type and began operating": maybe "ordered the model and began operating" or "ordered and began operating"
  • "terrain following radar": "terrain-following radar"
  • "Its design was influential, being reflected in later variable-sweep wing aircraft": either "Its design was influential in later variable-sweep wing aircraft" or "Its design was reflected in later variable-sweep wing aircraft"
  • "During its inception, however, the F-111 suffered a variety of development problems ...": "inception" generally refers to a point in time, and be careful with "however" to state the contrasting elements. I'd probably go with just "The F-111 suffered a variety of development problems ...".
  • "naval interception through the F-111B": Would "the F-111B naval interceptor" work?
  • "The RAAF was the last operator of the F-111, using its aircraft until their retirement in December 2010.": Would "The RAAF was the last operator of the F-111s, until their retirement in December 2010." work? - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all that has been corrected per suggested wording or otherwise reworded to address the issues. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark&oldid=415022924"