Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:54, 31 March 2009 [1].

---

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

Nominator(s): Socrates2008 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria and may be a topic of interest to Wikipedia readers... Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Per the MOS, curly quotes aren't used for quotations.
• Current ref 3 is a book, correct? It needs a page number (and doesn't need a last accessed date)
• What makes the broken arrow book a reliable source? Lulu.com is a self-publishing site
• Current ref 6 is a book, correct? Needs a page number and doesn't need the last access date.
• Current ref 14 needs a last access date
• Current ref 16 is a book? Needs page numbers
• Current ref 18 is a book? Needs page numbers

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Remark: Can you expand upon the Finish reaction to the incident? 'Friction' in relations doesn't articulate much information. By it do you mean some Finish politicians voiced their displeasure with the incident and it was forgotten or was there more to it than that? 69.196.151.215 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Response All done except Lulu, which is a tough one - the book draws significantly on declassified material which is not available online. If this source does not meet WP:V, then there will be a number of holes in key details in the article, particularly around the crash details.

Presumably you mean Danish not Finnish? Very little info available in English, but I'd see what I can find. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Comment -- Based off of the checker tools [dabs and external links] in the toolbox, and the WP:REFTOOLS script, all three are up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:

• I'm a little hinky on your verb tenses. In the first two sentences of the lede, you switch from past to past perfect: "... crashed into the ocean ..." and "... had bailed out of the aircraft ..."

Have hopefully addressed all of these - if not, then let me know.

• The lede itself needs work. As it is right now, it doesn't adequately cover all the information in the article -- the crewman who was killed, the controversy after the cleanup, revelations about contamination -- these all are key portions of the article and should be mentioned in the lede.

Rewritten

• You really should have a history/context section giving readers an idea about why Thule exists and how it was part of the string of SAC bases in the Far North. A short section giving an overview of why the bombers are there would be immensely helpful -- particularly if you can find some information pointing to lapses in maintenance or procedure at the base that might have contributed to the accident.

Done

• It's not clear in the article why an aircraft intended for early warning if BMEWS was hit would be carrying nuclear weapons. Perhaps that's something for the pre-crash events/history section?

Clarified

• The caption of the photo of Thule is a bit misleading ... it makes me think the accident scene literally is in the background, not just where it took place.
• Can you provide a citation for the assertion that the crash acted like a dirty bomb?

Done

• The transition from the underwater search to the BBC revelations is rather abrupt. There should be some sort of transition sentence or paragraph explaining what happened between the search and the revelations.

Not sure yet how to tackle this - any advice welcome.

• What is the legacy of the crash? In civilian aviation, almost every NTSB-investigated crash results in a change in procedure or manufacture. What happened to B-52 flight procedure as a result of the crash?

The biggest outcome concerned the ongoing viability of nuclear airborne alert missions. No publically available info about USAF changes to procedures or design of the aircraft.

• What ultimately was the cause of the crash? Was that ever determined? If not, what was investigators' best guess? JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fire caused by heater leading eventually to loss of electrical power

• Please see WP:LEAD (bolding is wrong), and why are dates linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Response Fixed, thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per 1(c). EDIT: Struck, Steve ^{T • C}

Libelous material posted by "Steve" was removed by me, Michael H. Maggelet, co-author of "Broken Arrow, The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents". Mr. Oskins is also aware of defamatory statements. If you have any questions regarding our military experience, expertise in the field of nuclear weapons, publishing history, website, radio appearances, etc., then feel free to contact us. Mhmagg (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)mhmagg

Steve ^{T • C} 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced 3 of the 5 places where this reference was used, which is no longer central to any crash details. Working on the remaining two now - if I can't find substitutes refs, I'll delete the associated content. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

All citations using this ref now removed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! I was literally minutes away from asking you if you wanted to withdraw the FAC to give you time to look for more sources at your leisure. I'll be happy to do a more comprehensive review of the article this evening. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Minor issues, mainly related to prose and clarity. EDIT: restating "oppose" pending resolution of questions over comprehensiveness. Steve ^{T • C}
  • Lead: Suggest linking "Chrome Dome" here, rather than in "Background"; the first instance is usually the best choice, especially given the lack of context given to the term in the necessarily truncated lead description.
  • Background:
    • "...up to a dozen nuclear-armed bombers..." What exactly does the source say? It seems odd to say "up to a dozen... at all times..." when it was important they had the deterrent, yet the wording suggests anything from one to twelve bombers.
    • "From 1961, a B-52 bomber continuously flew..." Odd wording makes it sound as if one particular bomber was in the air at all times.
    • "...with the purpose of maintaining visual surveillance of the strategically important Ballistic Missile Early Warning System located there." Multiple redundancies, consider "...to maintain visual surveillance of its strategically important Ballistic Missile Early Warning System." You may feel "its" introduces too much of an ambiguity (I don't); if so, consider "the base's", "Thule's" or similar.
  • Accident:
    • Missing reference at the end of the first paragraph.
    • "The flight was uneventful, apart from the scheduled mid-air refuelling with a KC-135 Stratotanker, which had to be conducted manually due to an error with the autopilot." Does the source say which plane's autopilot? The sentence also seems a little snake-like; recommend trying a couple of variations for a better fit.
    • "...despite the rheostat being..." The gerund requires this to be rendered as "...despite the rheostat's being..." but if you don't like that (some don't, especially with inanimate objects), consider restructuring the sentence to avoid it.
    • "...the flammable cushions in the vicinity of the duct under the instructor navigator's seat soon started to burn." More redundancies. We already know where the cushions are.
    • "Within five minutes the crew realized the fire, in the aft section of the lower deck, was out of control when the fire extinguishers were depleted, electrical power was lost and smoke filled the cockpit to the point that instruments could no longer be read." I was lost halfway through on the first read, possibly due to the aside telling us where the fire was.
    • "Of the six who ejected safely, one remained lost on the ice for nearly 24 hours." Does the source name the man on the ice, or at least his position in the crew?
  • Project Crested Ice:
    • Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of this section end with uncited sentences.
    • "The operation was conducted in total darkness until February." This makes it sound as if they didn't even use artificial lighting, when I assume you merely mean that winter provided no sunlight until then. Consider revising to include "natural light" somewhere.
    • It might be worth saying where the Pantex plant is.
    • "...declassified documents obtained in 2008 under the US Freedom of Information Act (parts of which remain classified)..." Consider "partly declassified" at the start to remove both the redundancy and the ambiguity that suggests the FoI Act itself is still partly classified.
    • "components...it would be " Check WP:ELLIPSIS for correct use.

This quote is lifted exactly like this from the source, so changing it would invalidate the citation; also, I'm not seeing the incorrect use of ellipsis here (3 periods without spaces). Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • "Project Crested Ice" or "Operation Crested Ice"? (See last sentence of section and caption)
  • Aftermath:
    • I don't think we need to say "airborne alert system" or similar after each instance of "Chrome Dome".
    • The third paragraph mostly repeats information from the "Project Crested Ice" section; consider moving the relevant detail from there to "Aftermath" or vice-versa.
    • Inconsistent terms ("clean-up" / "clean up", "Crested Ice").
    • "Scientific monitoring of the site has been carried out periodically, starting with expeditions in 1968, 1970 and 1974." It didn't start in each of those years, only the first.
    • What is "the Bylot Sound"?
    • "The main conclusions of that expedition, were;" Lose the comma and replace the semi-colon with a colon. "...that plutonium is not transported from the contaminated sediments into the surface water in this shelf sea." Sounds like a recommendation, i.e. that plutonium should not be transported. I assume it means that plutonium has not moved from the sediments?
    • Penultimate sentence: "The expedition concluded that..." Seems odd to separate this out from the previous "The conclusions of that expedition were...".
    • "...there are at least two different source terms for the Thule accident debris." What does this mean?
  • Throughout:
    • Overlinking; if a term is linked in the section above it, consider removal.
    • The prose is generally OK; it has a nice precision in parts, but could certainly do with another pass to remove multiple redundancies, especially in later sections. Example:

      Starting in 1960, United States Air Force B-52G Stratofortresses from Strategic Air Command conducted "Chrome Dome" airborne alert flights in various parts of the world. The purpose of the missions was to fly a nuclear-armed B-52 to various borders of the Soviet Union, so that Strategic Air Command would still have offensive capability in the event of a Soviet first strike. The programme ensured that up to a dozen nuclear-armed bombers were aloft at all times, thereby providing a significant Cold War nuclear deterrent.

      The sources reference different aspects of the same programme, so can be weaved together to remove the redundancies and make for a more concise statement—without losing any of the intended meaning:

      In 1960 the United States Air Force instigated Operation Chrome Dome, a program to fly nuclear-armed Strategic Air Command B-52G Stratofortresses to the borders of the Soviet Union. The flights were scheduled to ensure that up to twelve bombers were aloft at all times, giving Strategic Air Command offensive capability in the event of a Soviet first strike, and providing a significant Cold War nuclear deterrent.

    • American English uses "program" in this context I believe. Also specialized. Check for others.
    • Inconsistent use of "United States" and "US".
• Otherwise, it's a good, interesting article that shouldn't have too much trouble reaching featured status with a little more work. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for this very comprehensive and useful feedback. I believe I've addressed all your points above, if not please let me know. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the speedy changes. I've struck those that looked done on the first glance; I'll read through again for the others shortly. Steve ^{T • C} 10:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck several more. Pretty much just the prose issues now; I'll see if I can find time to help out further on that score Sunday evening (more likely Monday daytime). Steve ^{T • C} 01:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In the section "Project Crested Ice" I've been bold and merged two of the paragraphs. This is because the section introduces the partial release of classified documents twice; these paragraphs cover the same ground and are therefore better placed together, in my opinion. If you disagree with the change, feel free to revert it. Steve ^{T • C} 11:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the information in this report seems like it would be useful to the "Aftermath" section beyond the one statement it's used to cite presently. The fact that the Danish government "is adamant there is no hard evidence to suggest a long-term health impact" seems particularly relevant, along with the the opinion of Kaare Ulbak from the Danish National Institute of Radiation Protection, who says, "We have found no link between the crash and the illness of the Thule workers," which seemingly contradicts DICE's report. The report also mentions the 2000 European directive that required the workers' health to be monitored, the claims that this monitoring was not done, and the workers' insistence that the aforementioned lack of proof is because of that. I'm not saying the section should get bogged down in endless claim vs. counterclaim, but a whole point of view is conspicuous by its absence here. Steve ^{T • C} 15:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve, please feel free to expand, bearing in mind that there are claims and counter claims. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of putting something together now; I'll likely post it after I've been for lunch. Steve ^{T • C} 12:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added the Danish government's point-of-view to the section, along with additional detail from Schwartz about the earlier 1987 legal action and the initial manifesting of the health issues. You may feel it goes into too much detail, but what the section lacked was a coherent narrative; I think it now has this. Do the additions look OK to you? Steve ^{T • C} 15:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, happy, thanks Steve. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Super. My list of oppose issues has become a little messy, so when I go back through the article later, I'll post any issues I think are still outstanding below for clarity. Steve ^{T • C} 11:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, let's have a look where we stand against the Featured article criteria:

1. It is—
   • (a) well-written: I'm OK with the prose now the redundancies have been eliminated; further tweaks to make, but nothing major
   • (b) comprehensive: maybe, maybe not. See below
   • (c) well-researched: with the Lulu.com book removed, all sources are verifiable and reliable
   • (d) neutral: the addition of material on the post-accident contamination addresses this concern
   • (e) stable: I doubt this article will ever be an edit-war magnet
2. From what I can tell, it follows the style guidelines. It also provides—
   • (a) a concise lead that appropriately summarises the article body
   • (b) appropriate structure: all sections are relevant to their content
   • (c) consistent citations: not entirely. Template {{cite report}} seems to render the publisher field on a new line. I've taken a look at the code, but can't see why this is occurring. If it can't be fixed, I suggest writing the citation without the use of the template
3. Images are all PD and appropriately positioned
4. The length is well within guidelines and stays focused on the main topic

The template issue is minor, so my only real concern now is over the article's comprehensiveness. I'm curious over the lack of Danish and Greenlandish (Greenlish? Greenlandic?) sources. It may well be that the English-language sources cover everything, but did you consult any Danish books or articles on the accident? As for the legacy of the crash, which you indicate above did not result in any design or procedural changes, Sagan, pp. 180–201 seems to go into a lot of detail about potential disasters that could have occurred due to the crash, and says at one point that the design of the B-28 bomb was subsequently altered to reduce the risk of accidental detonations during a crash. Steve ^{T • C} 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Looked at the template issue too, and couldn't see the problem either. I don't speak Danish, and have checked all the English sources I can find. I said we don't know if there were any changes, as the USAF, unlike civilian aviation organisations, is not obliged to publish this info (even though it would seem reasonable that crews would be instructed in the short term not to put foam cushions next to the heater, or that the cushions would be replaced by something non-combustible and that Boeing would change the heater design in the longer term). Regarding the bomb trigger design, I don't think Sagan is reliable here for the following reasons:

• His reference looks dodgy (p. 185, ref #82)
• No other source mentions a change to the triggering mechanism as a direct result of the Thule incident
• If the Thule accident resulted in a determination that the trigger was unsafe, then why did they take 10 years to change it? (Sagan, p.185)
• The 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash stands out as the one where they realised that the triggering mechanism was unsafe, as 5/6 of the safety switches were infamously bypassed during this event.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine; I actually misread the page and thought Sagan made a more explicit link between this accident and the change to the design. As for the lack of Danish sources, one would think that a great deal has been written in those sources, due to the accident's occurring on Danish soil (well, sea ice). It may be that the English-language sources do cover everything of note, but this is going to be quite difficult to determine if none of the others have even been checked. Here's one example of a potential omission: The Arctic Promise by Natalia Loukacheva only very briefly touches on the Thule crash, but in her footnotes (p. 208), she cites a Danish-language source (Oreskov, Claus (1995) 'Ultima Thule?' 3. Indigenous Affairs 51) that references the financial compensation sought by the clean-up crews from the state. It talks of a hearing that "did not find sufficient evidence of a connection between the many health problems suffered by the Thule workers and Inughuit hunters and the participation in the clean-up" and says the government nevertheless decided to pay approximately US$9,000 to everyone (including surviving relatives) able to document their presence and involvement in the clean-up. Which hearings are these? When did they take place? Even if you doubt her source's reliability, there must be others that talk of the same hearings. This is just one example, which took only a few minutes to find. If there are other Danish sources that would shed light on this, it may be worth contacting Hemmingsen (talk · contribs) to see if he/she can offer any assistance. Steve ^{T • C} 08:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and I forget why, but we're not supposed to use the {{citation}} template in the same article that already uses {{cite x}} (journal, news, etc) templates. Steve ^{T • C} 11:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• It has to do with the consistency of citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Prime Minister H.C. Hansen's infamous 1957 letter regarding "munition of a special kind" in which he gave the United States permission to store nuclear weapons in Greenland isn't even mentioned. The closest the article gets to mentioning this seems to be "The Danish government officially opposed the presence of nuclear weapons on its soil, but discovered in 1965 that the Americans were storing nuclear weapons at Thule against their wishes." which is a rather misleading statement. The government did officially oppose the presence of nuclear weapons but were aware of and accepted their presence. When the content of the letter was made public in the 1990s, it became a central part of what many consider one of the biggest scandals in post-WW2 Danish politics, so it should be treated at some length in my opinion. I'd also like to see a bit of information on the impact on the 1968 election. The government party, the social democrats, lost quite a few seats and the antimilitarist social liberal party won a huge number. Surely some reliable source can be found that discusses whether there is a connection here? Hemmingsen 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are no reliable English sources about the "munition of a special kind", which furthermore appears to pre-date the discovery of weapons on the ground in Greenland in 1965. Details on the political fallout in Denmark are thin in English sources, however the sources I can find on the 1968 Danish election don't mention the incident or cite other reasons for the loss of 7 seats: (1 2, 3, 4, 5) If you have a reliable source for more information or for a different point of view, please could you provide it so that it can be included. Thanks.

I'm striking my oppose since the sources you nevertheless did manage to find allowed for a nice improvement. I still think more could be said on the topic, but I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to research it myself and I suppose simply providing a list of Danish language books won't be much help.
I guess my speculation on the 1968 election was useless so I apologize for the noise about that. Hemmingsen 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sagan, p. 180 provides information about the 1968 election; he talks about a "significant domestic political crisis" and the "severe embarrassment" to the government, though doesn't explicitly say that it resulted in the loss of seats. Steve ^{T • C} 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.