Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/F-105 Thunderchief

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

F-105 Thunderchief

[edit]

Completely rewritten with citations and references, comprehensive overview of this Vietnam War workhorse. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose While the article is well written and appears to do a good job of covering the topic, the citations are really too few and far between. There are a number of (presumably) easily citable facts, particularly regarding technical specifications, that lack citations, and some paragraphs have no citations whatsoever. Carom 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs more cites Once this article is throughly cited, it will get upgraded to A-class without trouble. But at the moment, as Carom says, it's not at that standard. Buckshot06 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, I've gone through and added references where appropriate. Please re-evaluate. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a guideline that indicates the minimum number of citations. Every claim and every significant statement has been cited, the rest of the material is assembled from sources in references. Please show specifically what needs to be cited. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the current project guideline on citations is here. Kirill Lokshin 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to view a reference/note section as needing about 15-20 different sources or notes to be what I consider "well written", since that has now become an accepted guideline for FA-class articles (and to my way of thinking, A-class articles as well). This is the figure stated at WP:IC, which recieves a considerable amount of traffic from new comers and first time A-class/FA-class people who are not sure how to add inline citations. I do make exceptions to this general policy of mine if an article draws heavily on one primary source for most of the information. Having brought USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) up to FA status, and having guided them through the FAR process, I know that there are times when an article can be well written and well cited with a small amount of citations, or a large number of citations to the same source, and I have adjusted my vote accordingly under such circumstances. In this case though, I feel that the article could be better improved on. Take the following examples:
  • ...by March 1953 the USAF had reduced the order to 37 fighter-bombers and 9 tactical reconnaissance aircraft, citing the approaching end of the Korean War.
  • By the time the F-105 mockup had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it was abandoned in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75.
  • The first production F-105B flew on 14 May 1957.
  • Nicknamed the Wild Weasel, these aircraft achieved 9 confirmed victories against North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile radars.
  • Although the F-105D was withdrawn from Vietnam in 1970, the Wild Weasel aircraft soldiered on until the end of the war.
  • The initial reaction of the fighter pilot community to their new aircraft was lukewarm.
None of these claims cite a source; there is no number at the end of the sentence or paragraph to back up these claims. Its not that I don’t think the article has potential; rather, the articles that we approve for A and FA-status should reflect the motto of the US Marine Corps: "The Few, The Proud", and this one is not quite there yet. I would encourage you not to give up though; I have absolute faith in your ability to get this article to A-class, or if you choose, Featured Status. As they say, the best things in life are worth working for :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will address the issues you noted above. For future reference (yours, mine, and everyone else's), actually tagging the article with fact tags as was done with F-84 is by far the best way to give feedback on what exactly needs a citation. As I said in my F-84 comments, having done most of the writing makes a lot of the facts obvious and not needing a citation to me. I apologize for my frustration (I genuinely appreciate all constructive criticism) and I'll take care of the cites. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Well written, did't notice major problems. I'd like to see more photos; the distribution of notes suggests there may be overreliance on a single source; but I don't think it should prevent the article from being rated as A-class. Bukvoed 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Multiple sources make sense for controversial topics with many opinions or for very complex topics. The majority of citations are for dates and hard numbers, not something that would be subject to controversy or heated debates. I can cross-reference every number across 10 different sources (I do verify all the specs between several sources) but that would be pretty insane, wouldn't it? - Emt147 Burninate! 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Of course multiple sources for specific details aren't needed typically. What I wanted to say is that the article seems to be based on Knaack with relatively minor additions from other sources, which is sort of a shortcoming... at least I think so. Perhaps I have wrong impression; or perhaps Knaack is the definitive source; or... etc. Anyway, I like the article, it is comprehensive and well written, it probably already qualifies as A-class. Bukvoed 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is a combination of about half a dozen sources. It's easier from the writing standpoint to cite all numbers from one source but I can see how that would create an impression of overreliance on multiple sources. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I really don't care how few citations there are, as long as the information is accurate. Of course, I have no idea if it is, which is the point of citations in the first place. But, for length, detail, style, etc, I'm happy to support it. LordAmeth 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/F-105_Thunderchief&oldid=97561665"