Talk:Package Q Strike

Military history: Aviation / Middle East / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Comments of 20 July 2010

In the article, AA-8 missiles are mentioned as ground-to-air, but upon further research, are actually air-to-air. Should I remove that reference from the article? Can anyone second me? --Anon423 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the article in general feels as if it had been written by a 10-year old with huge self-overconfidence in military affairs and bad grammar.--Anon423 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an Iraqi strategic victory

I don't see how the engagement can be said to have ended as a strategic victory for Iraq. A strategic victory is "a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor, and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war". The loss of 3 F-16s by the U.S. did not disturb their ability to fight and did not provide any long-term advantage to Iraq. Could a source be provided to support the claim in the article? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The attack caused the USAF to reconsider sending in large amounts of F-16 into Baghdad for the rest of the war. From then on it was only B-2s, I would at least call that a minor strategic victory. Skuzbucket (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the text has been changed to "U.S. operational failure" per one of the sources, which seems appropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Skuzbucket: B-2s? The B-2 was not in used in Desert Storm. Hagman1983 (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F-15Es? Doubt it...

I've read "Strike Eagle - Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War" by William L. Smallwood and "F-15E Strike Eagle Units in Combat 1990-2005" by Steve Davies, and neither of these books mention if F-15Es was in any way part of this strike, cause if the Strike Eagles had been part it, I think it would have been mentioned. Not even GAOs "OPERATION DESERT STORM EVALUATION OF THE AIR CAMPAIGN" mentions that F-15Es particiapted. Some one should check sources. Hagman1983 (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No F-15E's took part in this mission. ^[1] MKopack (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Personal knowledge

Strike Section

It would appear as if the "Strike" section of the article has been plagiarized word for word from this military document: http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-067.pdf on pages 173 and 174. Is this acceptable? 96.245.244.223 (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the document is a work of the US government. The US government does not hold copyright to works produced by federal employees in their official capacity. If the work is produced by a government contractor, the contractor would still hold the copyright though. Sperril (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still good practice to acknowledge the source of and place quotation marks around verbatim quotes in our articles, whether copyrighted or not. Generally we don't cut-and-paste whole blocks of text from a source to create an entire section of an article. Instead, we paraphrase, perhaps with limited verbatim quotes placed in quotation marks, with an inline citation of the source. This complies with WP:MOS and WP:RS. loupgarous (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

needs clarification

"One fighter would have crashed short of Coalition territory had a KC-135 tanker from the Kansas National Guard not crossed over into enemy territory. When the F-16s began refueling in Iraqi territory, it had only 800 pounds of fuel on board, in the words of the wing commander, flying as a wingman, “an eye-watering situation.” " It had only referring to the tanker, or the low on fuel f-16? Needs a little rewording for precision. 80.233.239.118 (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Personal knowledge

[1]