Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by GrahamColm 14:25, 18 December 2012 [1].

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service[edit]

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the brief service history of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II fighter bomber with the Royal Australian Air Force. While the RAAF chose to acquire General Dynamics F-111Cs instead of F-4s in the early 1960s, severe delays to the development of the F-111s led the Australian Government to lease 24 Phantoms from the United States Air Force at a cut-rate price. The aircraft were in service with the RAAF from late 1970 until mid-1973, and proved so successful that the Air Force sought to retain them as well as the F-111s.

Given the short, and largely uneventful, service history of these aircraft with Australia this article is much shorter and simpler than is the case for most of my FA nominations. However, it's comprehensive, and draws on all the few published works which describe this topic in detail. The article was assessed as GA class in July and passed a Military History wikiproject A class review in October. It's since been expanded and copy edited, and I think that it now also meets the FA criteria. Note that I have received dispensation to have two FACs open at the same time [2]. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose quality. Fuller review to follow within 24 hours. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I'd be pleased to respond to a review. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I've also undertaken some preemptive copy editing!) Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be a little late! Here's my review.
  • Lead para: "successful"... "unsuccessful"... "successful" grates somewhat; "played an important role in improving the force's professional standards"; can you explain this?
  • Acquisition: "program" -> "programme" (not 100% sure of Aus Eng usage); "low altitudes" -> "low altitude"; five "however"s are definitely too many here!
    • Both are valid, but 'program' is generally preferred at the moment. I've fixed the altitudes, but 'however' isn't over-used; it only appears 7 times in the article, and only twice in the same paragraph (in which I've just replaced one of the instances) Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I make it six for the article, with four in that one section. It would be easy, and keep all the meaning, to remove all or almost all of them, per the style guide. I think this is my last remaining quibble on prose quality. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just killed 4 or 5 of them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you confirm which it was? The latter would make you an "ace"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Only four splashes, but two "successful"s have reappeared. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks Dank; I've tweaked part of your changes rather heavily though (the RAAF's 1964 proposal seems to have been to say that if Cabinet decided that it wanted interim aircraft the F-4s were the best option, and so wasn't really an 'unsuccessful' proposal as the RAAF doesn't seem to have had a strong position on the topic at the time). I've repaced the second 'successful' in the lead with 'effective'. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The changes look good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's getting there certainly. We're down to two howevers. There are some other problems with the prose. I'll list them here and see if we can sort them out before Ican support. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • OK, but there's nothing wrong with using the word 'however' where appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. On a Featured Article I think I would disagree that there would be much place for this kind of language. WP:EDITORIAL says "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." The current version has two examples:
  1. "The RAAF accepted all 24 F-111Cs at a ceremony held at Fort Worth, Texas, on 4 September 1968. However, at this time the F-111 program was in crisis due to technical problems with the design of the aircraft's wing assembly, and all of the USAF and RAAF's F-111s were grounded after an American F-111 crashed on 23 September; at this time the Australian aircraft were still in the United States."
  2. "Ground attack missions were practiced from February 1971, and in June that year the Phantoms began dropping live bombs during exercises. Shortages of spare parts complicated the process of bringing the aircraft into service at times, however."

Do these two uses fulfil "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"? I think I am still leaning towards "no". I think it would be fairly easy to improve the wording to remove this infelicity. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all respect, I've actually used this language in multiple FAs (see, for instance, Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy which passed last week). I'm far from alone in doing so - as a semi-random example, the FA currently on the main page (Youngstown, Ohio) also uses 'however' in this way; it's a perfectly normal phrase. In regards to your two concerns here 1) There's a clear link between the two concepts as at the time the RAAF accepted the aircraft the program was in real trouble (the acceptance of the aircraft at this time turned into a major embarrassment for the government and RAAF once the extent of the problems became known, but that's a topic for the F-111C article) 2) the word emphasizes that the process of bringing the F-4s into service (the subject of the paragraph) wasn't all sweetness and light, and doesn't give undue emphasis to this in the context of the full paragraph (which, rightly, emphasizes the successful introduction of this type into RAAF service) - again, the two concepts are linked. In regards to WP:EDITORIAL, it's about introducing relationships which aren't in the sources, which isn't the case here. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the respect. However isn't a phrase, it's a word. I think, with all my respect, that you're missing the point here. However expresses an opinion that the second data point contradicts the first. There is no contradiction beween the RAAF buying a plane that then turned out to be temporarily unflyable. This kind of thing happens fairly often with new types. The sentence would work just as well without the however. Likewise the second example; there's no real contradiction between the Phantom being certified to drop live ordnance and becoming operational later than predicted. Again this is fairly common and again the sentence wouldn't be the poorer for just removing it, in my opinion. --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, fair enough on the second sentence; I've re-checked the source, and have tweaked it so it reads better and is more interesting. In regards to the first point, it's important to note that there is a contradiction - the RAAF didn't 'buy a plane'; it took formal delivery of these aircraft (which means that they're meant to be flown in combat and all other situations). They also weren't 'temporarily unflyable': their design was so flawed that they came close to being scrapped, and it took 5 years to fix the problems (hence the need for the Phantoms, which as the article notes would have also been the RAAF's fall back had the F-111s proved unfixable, as was thought to be the case at times). As such, the word is appropriate given the contradiction between accepting these planes and the true state of the aircraft at the time. I'd be open to your suggestion for how this could be re-worded though. Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Note: as part of the above comment I also accidentally posted some comments which contained a totally untrue statement about MarchOrDie. I drafted these comments only as a means of venting to myself, and they don't reflect my actual views. I've apologised to MarchOrDie on their talk page, and would also like to publicly do so here). Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see Nick removed one "however" and kept the other, and this seems right to me (after a small tweak, which I made). It's up to the delegates if MarchOrDie opposes, of course, but I don't believe the delegates will have a problem with the sole remaining "however". (It wouldn't bother me, though, if they object ... there are a lot of POVs on "however", and I can support anything reasonable and consistent.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've made a proposal via an edit on how we could get rid of the last however, and I withdraw my oppose regardless of whether you feel my proposal is worth implementing. Thank you for your work on this very fine article and for using most of my suggestions. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for that, though as Dank noted that wording changed the meaning of those passages a bit. Thanks again for your review. Nick-D (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Operational service: "a number of" is weak; "several" would be better. What are "break skid"s? Does this mean anti-skid braking?

There may be a few more but these are the main ones that are leaping out at me. Nothing that can't be fixed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • FN30: formatting
  • File:F-4_Phantom_in_flight_Apr_1982.jpg: source link returns timeout error. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may now be available via http://www.defenseimagery.mil/index.htm, but it's having one of its periodical downtimes. I'll re-check in a day or two and will remove the photo if I can't verify the source. Thanks for your comments and checks Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That site's image search function is still down and I can't find a source for it elsewhere, so I've removed the image. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Note I'm going to be out of town for work from Sunday to Friday, and while I'll have my laptop I may not have regular internet access. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after minor tweaks. Good article. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Since I'm pretty familiar with this story and the sources Nick has used, I'm recusing myself from delegate duties in favour of a full-fledged review...

  • Over all this is in good shape, my only concerns are right at the top:
    • Infobox: Role is described as "fighter-bomber", which may be legit, but not once is this specialised term mentioned or cited in the main body. Either we need to mention/cite this as its prime role in the main body, or else use one of the terms that is mentioned/cited in the main body (ground attack, strike, whatever) here instead.
      • Good point: I've added some wording around this and a cite to the infobox to briefly clarify the situation Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead: We need to clarify things for the uninitiated, and this relates to the role in the infobox. We don't actually define the Phantom's role in the RAAF in the first paragraph. We describe the aircraft as a fighter, which is generally correct, insofar as its main role with its home country goes, but misleading in relation to its RAAF service. We then say it was procured as a stop-gap for the F-111, whose role we don't mention either, even though we assert that the Phantom was successful in fulfilling whatever that role was... ;-) The solution may take less time than my definition of the problem, this for instance:

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) operated 24 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II aircraft in the ground attack role between 1970 and 1973. The Phantoms were leased from the United States Air Force (USAF) as an interim measure owing to delays in the delivery of the RAAF's 24 General Dynamics F-111C bombers. The F-4Es were considered successful in this role, but the government did not agree to a proposal from the RAAF to retain the aircraft after the F-111s entered service in 1973.

Changes made as suggested. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other that that, having performed my habitual light copyedit, I'm pretty happy with the prose, likewise structure, referencing, image licensing, and level of detail.
  • No spotcheck of sources performed, but I note Nick had one of those in his last FAC and, having employed three of his main sources in WP articles myself, I'm confident that he's used them accurately. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for those comments and edits Ian. If anyone does want to spot check the references, the full text of the books by Mark Lax (one of the two major sources I've used) and Alan Stephens is online. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing over this FAC, I'm glad to see others also tackling the "however" proliferation on Wikipedia; I thought I'd park these here in the event they are helpful: [3] [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II_in_Australian_service/archive1&oldid=1078803150"