Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Factotem (talk · contribs) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Well Written?
[edit]On first read through it's fundamentally good. I'll copy-edit the small stuff as I go through, and highlight more substantial changes here.FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Second sentence, third para, Design and variants section, is huge and unwieldy. Can it be broken down into discrete sentences, and do we really need to know who designed/built the turrets?FactotEm (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
3rd para in section "Initial USAAF operations over Europe" begins "At the same time..." but not clear which time is being referred to. Also has the abbreviation "AAF" - need to clarify what this stands for (USAAF?). FactotEm (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The 2nd Schweinfurt raid is already discussed in the 4th para, "Combined offensive" section. The 5th para then talks about the effects of the losses and other stuff, but the last sentence then seems to return to the 2nd Schweinfurt raid and Doolittle's attempts to cancel it. Is there a disconnect here?FactotEm (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The last para in the lead contradicts itself. FactotEm (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Referencing
[edit]| unnamed refs | 89 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| named refs | 145 | ||
| self closed | 172 | ||
| cs1 refs | 84 | ||
| cs1 templates | 64 | ||
| cs2 refs | 2 | ||
| cs2 templates | 2 | ||
| harv refs | 1 | ||
| harv templates | 1 | ||
| sfn templates | 1 | ||
| uses ldr | yes | ||
| cleanup templates | 11 | ||
| dead link templates | 1 | ||
| webarchive templates | 18 | ||
| use xxx dates | dmy | ||
| cs1|2 dmy dates | 15 | ||
| cs1|2 mdy dates | 1 | ||
| cs1|2 ymd dates | 2 | ||
| cs1|2 dmy access dates | 23 | ||
| cs1|2 mdy access dates | 3 | ||
| cs1|2 ymd access dates | 12 | ||
| cs1|2 dmy archive dates | 19 | ||
| cs1|2 ymd archive dates | 2 | ||
| cs1|2 last/first | 29 | ||
| cs1|2 author | 1 | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| explanations | |||
Zamzow is a dead link. It's also a thesis, which need to be handled carefully. FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added a fair few citation needed tags. Also, running the External Links checker on this page throws up quite a few problems. FactotEm (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Overall, a mess.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've learned that deadlinks aren't a show-stopper for GA, but nevertheless it might be a good idea to look at this.FactotEm (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Coverage
[edit]Third sentence in Design and varients section begins "While models A through D of the B-17 were designed defensively..." and then details the E model, but preceding paras make no mention of the D model. FactotEm (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The section on Colin Kelly's actions seems a bit anecdotal, and just plain odd. In one sentence he's crashing his B-17 into a Japanese ship (which the article on him makes no mention of), then 2 sentences later he's flying his burning B-17 long enough for the crew to bale. Does this need to be in the article? FactotEm (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The last sentence in the section "Bomber defense", beginning "This durability..." seems out of place. It's something I would expect to see in a summary somewhere, at the end of the article or maybe the lead, but not in a section with such a specific subject. Is it necessary? FactotEm (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole "Luftwaffe attacks" section seems to stray off topic. Do we need so much information? Would it be better to condense into a couple of sentences and place it at the end of the preceding section?FactotEm (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Not a fan of 'in popular culture' sections myself, and this and the "Other non-military achievements and events" section don't seem to add much to the article. Consider removing?FactotEm (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
There were at most 168 B-17s in the Pacific Theatre, of over 12,000 built, yet the Pacific Theatre section represents around half of the text in the whole Operational History section, which includes an introductory section, RAF usage, initial USAAF operations, and the combined offensive sub-sections. I would have thought there would be more to say about operations over Europe, or have I missed something? FactotEm (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The Accidents and incidents section needs a short summary FactotEm (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Stable
[edit]Yes. FactotEm (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Illustrated
[edit]If anything, the article is over-illustrated. Lots of images down the right hand side, and some sandwiching of the text. Do we really need so many images? FactotEm (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Review on hold
[edit]I've replaced the review on hold to give the nominator a chance to respond to the comments above. FactotEm (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm going to fail this nomination. Sorry. None of the comments have been addressed, either by discussion or amendments to the article. It's a shame, because it's really quite well written. The balance, however, doesn't feel right, specifically with regard to information about European theatre of operations in comparison with the rest of the article. The profusion of images is another key issue. Note that I have not checked the licensing of these, nor do I intend to while there is the likelihood that quite a few will be removed. Happy to revisit this if someone wants to get involved. FactotEm (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)