Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Pepsi Points Case (Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

Is it worth including anything about the Pepsico Points Case? At least a quick mention and a link to the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.217.105 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This was covered at Harrier Jump Jet, but somehow got lost in a move to Aircraft in fiction#Harrier_Jump_Jet about a year ago. So I restored the text in this article with references. -fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

This is a pre-FAC source review and spotcheck. I've got this page watchlisted, so feel free to respond here...and don't expect me to go easy on you ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not strictly a sourcing point, but a good pre-FAC check can be done using this tool
• Missing bibliographic info for Spick & Gunston 2000
  • The citation was removed, but appears to have been readded?
    • And the book was added to the biblio. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry for removing the Spick book, since I couldn't find a 2000 publication composed jointly by Spick and Gunston. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether shortened citations include both authors or only one
• No citations to Markman & Holder 2000
• Be consistent in whether or not your bibliography entries include harvids (honestly, I wouldn't include them unless you're actually using them, but that's a personal preference)
• Where a source includes info like page numbers, include it in the citation (ex. FN 6)
• FN 38: page?
• Be consistent in whether website names are italicized or not (ex. FN 37 vs 40)
• FN 44: check pagination

• That's what the webpages say. Can't find the original page numbers. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for Flight International refs (ex FN 106)
• FN 56: formatting
• Be consistent in how you format multi-author refs
  • Not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 72: probably a good idea to spell out publisher
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This is credited to a blog, so also would need justification. Also, while I would not personally question globalsecurity.org, I am aware of several other reviewers who would

• Addressing your first point. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 104, 106: check italicization
• FN 111: page(s)? (now 112)
• FN 116: formatting
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
  • Not done.
• Spell out or link CSIS
• "Conversion of the first remanufactured AB-8B began in April 1994" vs "Conversion of the first aircraft began in August 1994." is a bit close, might want to rephrase; same with "the General Accounting Office said that it would be cheaper to buy the Harrier II Plus outright under a multi-year procurement program" vs "the US Congress says that it would be cheaper to buy new aircraft from MDC under a multi-year procurement scheme"; "Remanufacturing gives existing aircraft greatly-enhanced capabilities, at two-thirds the cost of new-builts" vs "Re-manufacture gives the Harrier greatly improved capabilities and a new service life at about two-thirds the cost of a new Harrier II"
• How many pilots? "The pilots sits"

Spotchecked 5 sources, found some relatively close paraphrasing but no V issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've largely addressed your points. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, left some replies/examples above for stuff that wasn't quite down, but it's looking mostly good. I am interested to know, however, how you managed to retrieve FN 105 on a day that doesn't exist :-P. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understood your query, but I typed in Google "AV-8B Operation Unified Protector" before scrolling down to the sixth result. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing... at the moment it looks like all of the Flight International refs have FI as the "publisher" - which it isn't of course. The exception is in the Bibliography, which lists it as a journal. Apart from being a bit confusing, this also makes the italics inconsistent... for example Flight Daily News is not in italics because it's listed as "work", but Flight International (published by the same company) is, because it's listed as "publisher". How to resolve this? Change all the FI refs to "work"? (And if so, should we list the publisher as well?) Or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(And in fact, regardless of this, the magazine titles should be italicised anyway per WP:ITALICS; maybe we're using the wrong citation template here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Formatting of citations

There's been some unusual decisions taken in the past for how the sources for this article have been cited and formatted (for reasons that made sense at the time), and there still seems to be a bit of uncertainty in some of it. So I'd like to try get some concensus on how these should be handled, with the aim of achieving some long term stability as well.

Here's a first set of suggestions; please point out the flaws or any better/recommended ways of doing it...

• Flight International refs should use {{Citation template, including as a minimum fields magazine=Flight International, and a title="something" (including the quotes)
  • "Retrieved" is not capitalised. I'm not sure if the changes would make any visible difference, so I think the changes would introduce more problems than solving the current issues. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what issue you're raising - that's a problem with the template, surely? Right now, the article has a whole bunch of references where the "publisher" field contains the name of the publication, not anything that could be sensibly described as a publisher. And a substantial proportion of those, still contain a date field as part of the publisher field. It seems to me there's no way it will become an FA unless that's fixed. Is there a different way forward? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. You can write the references out by hand, without templates. --Eisfbnore • talk 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, I had a feeling someone might say that. Sp33dyphil - and others - is that something you would prefer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Flight Daily News refs, for the sake of consistency with FI (from the same publisher) should use {{Citation template, including as a minimum fields magazine=Flight Daily News (I've just created that as a redirect) and a title="something" (including the quotes)
• Federal Computer Week refs, should use {{cite web template, including as a minimum fields publisher=1105 Government Information Group, work=Federal Computer Week, and a title="something" (including the quotes)
• Los Angeles Times refs should use {{Citation template, including as a minimum fields newspaper=Los Angeles Times, and a title="something" (including the quotes). The existing last1, first1, last2 fields should be used for the author names
• Defense Industry Daily - not really sure about this one... any suggestions for consistency with the above?
• Aviation Week refs should use {{Citation template, including as a minimum fields magazine=Aviation Week, and a title="something" (including the quotes)

(Some instances of magazine may be replaced by periodical or journal depending on what is most appropriate, I'd welcome views on this - but Flight Daily News is a publication, not a website.)

If we can get concensus on how to present these, it should be a lot easier to wrap up the reference formatting for the press releases and pure web sources as well. The books mostly look fine already, with a few exceptions as noted above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Yugoslavia deployment with USMC

While copy-editing this, I'm having trouble working out the exact meaning of some parts of the third paragraph of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II#United States Marine Corps. The 24th and 26th were based on Nassau, and the 24th flew combat missions from 14th to 28th April. On 28th April the 24th was relieved by the 26th (implying either the end of the 24th's combat involvement, or at least a pause in it), with the 26th now based on Kearsarge. Did the 26th move from Nassau to Kearsarge at some point during those 14 days? Was the 26th undertaking any combat missions from Nassau before 28th April? (And if not, why are we mentioning their presence on Nassau?) Also, capability rates are mentioned for the 24th's entire six month deployment. Does this imply they were taking part in combat missions again at some point after they were relieved by the 26th - or just that they were available in theatre for the rest of the six months, but were not called upon? (answered off-wiki - they were available in theatre but not in combat) Finally, do we know what the difference is between "mission-capable rate" and "full mission-capable rate", and if so, should we wikilink it or explain it? From here I only get a snippet view of Nordeen's book, so I can't really work any of this out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil has now clarified this so that the Nassau/Kearsange thing makes sense. Any thoughts on the "mission-capable" versus "full mission-capable" question?

As a side note, in the same section I've expanded the text slightly to say that the 85% aircraft availability record was in the Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom), rather than throughout the aircraft's history. Please correct if I've misunderstood this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting notes

• "new-build Harriers": wondering if we can make this clearer. How about "new-build (not remanufactured) Harriers"? Or "new-built", one of Fnlayson's suggestions from the recent FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [Done].
• "The technological advances incorporated into the Harrier II, compared with the original Harrier, significantly reduce the workload on the pilot.": I can't tell whether the current text should be revised in light of Fnlayson's point: "The tech advances have been more about making it easier on the pilot to strike a target. The main Harrier versions have a crew of one. Trainer versions are the only 2-crew versions."
• "To prepare for USMC service, the AV-8B underwent rigorous evaluations.": Better would be "the standard rigorous evaluations", "the mandated rigorous evaluations" or "especially rigorous evaluations", whichever is most accurate. [Done]
• "CFB", "MCAS": I don't see any specific advice about acronyms in your style guide. Has WP:AIR come to any conclusions about when to write out acronyms? Are there any books, reference works, style guides or usage guides you like to consult for questions like this? Searching nytimes.com, I get "Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake" and (the) "China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station". [Done]
• "required the AV-8B to provide fighter escort, combat air patrol, and deck-launched intercept missions": I don't usually see "provide ... missions"; you can "fly" fighter escort (and other) missions. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [Done]
• "Models of the Harrier family have been collectively called the "Jump Jet".": I don't understand ... does that mean it's not okay to call a Harrier or Harrier II a "jump jet", but it's okay to use the term referring to ... what exactly? [Done]
• "payload. As a result, Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas joined forces in 1973 to develop...": See WP:Checklist#because (one of two new points in WP:Checklist). "payload, and in 1973 Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas jointly developed ..." [or "began joint development of", whichever is more accurate] [Done]
• "a small 60-aircraft requirement by the RAF": I'm not sure what you're saying. In general, if it's possible to substitute the word "order" for "requirement" ... that is, if there's been some kind of written request for that many planes ... then I think a lot more readers will understand the word "order". But you might be saying something else. [Done]
• "a new larger wing, which could be retrofitted to existing operational aircraft": This is a little tricky, but better would be to drop the comma and go with "that" instead of "which". If it helps, think of the sentence as short for: "a new wing large enough to be retrofitted to existing operational aircraft". [Done]
• "the AV-16 development": development of the AV-16 [Done]
• Okay, I hope that covers the lead, the first subsection, and leftover comments from the FAC. Now I'll ask around for a copyeditor to run down the WP:Checklist on the rest. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly relevant - 72 BaE Harrier IIs to be used as spare parts for AV-8Bs

"UK sells 72 retired Harrier jump jets for $180m to US" - BBC News. Maybe there's a better source for this out there somewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This has already been added to the UK Harrier II article. I was waiting on the deal being finalized, and need to find a good place to mention it here. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

MilHist A-class review

The Military History project A-class review is going now. See transcluded section below. Try to help where you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:MilHistory A-class review page

Source #97 inaccurate in its reporting

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I apologize for the earlier unsourced edit in regards to the Harriers flying again. However, I know it to be absolutely true that they will never fly again. The source for the report about them getting in the air again is wrong. That author is reporting factually incorrect (in regards to the GR-9 transfer) rumors in Air Force Monthly. In the interest of keeping the article correct, but being unable to provide a publicly accessible source (in regards to the fact they will never fly again)? What is the recommended course of action?

(The Implementing Arrangement between the United States and United Kingdom specifically forbade the use of the Harriers in a flyable status)

Okiordie (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. There needs to be a reliable (and accessible) source to make such changes to the cited text. Wait until the news comes out in the media. Maybe something will come out soon. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here] is a Flightglobal article that appears to confirm that the ex-RAF Harriers will not be flown (according to NAVAIR), explicity mentioning the GR9s although that does give a possible loophole for the T.10s, which might be a more likely aircraft to go back into service.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm, I was suckered... seems that the editor-in-chief for AFM - Gary Parsons has got some serious explaining to do for publishing that in the first place. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

accident rate

The accident rate for the US operated AV-8B's is disturbing. I read somewhere that the Spanish operated Harriers never had a loss. It was suggested that part of the cause may be that US pilots transitioned to the Harrier at 200 flight hours, whereas the Spanish pilots had to have 1000 hours before transitioning. I haven't confirmed this. If anybody can find out accident rates, trainining times, etc., it would be an interesting addition to the article.

accident rate

The accident rate for the US operated AV-8B's is disturbing. I read somewhere that the Spanish operated Harriers never had a loss. It was suggested that part of the cause may be that US pilots transitioned to the Harrier at 200 flight hours, whereas the Spanish pilots had to have 1000 hours before transitioning. Apparently operating hours were comparable. I haven't confirmed this. If anybody can find out accident rates, trainining times, etc., it would be an interesting addition to the article.