Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of this peer review was that the article's assessment was unchanged. --Born2flie (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F-16 Fighting Falcon

I’ve rewritten and added a lot of material, so it’s time for fresh eyes, especially since it’s grown quite long and I’m at the point where reshaping of the article needs to begin. (Please note that due to real-life demands I may not be able to respond swiftly to implementing suggestions as quickly as I’d like, I will do my best.)

1) Are there topics (or subtopics) that you feel need to be covered yet are not? Contrariwise, are there some that you feel could be cut without detriment to the article?

2) There is a lot of information on variants – because there have been a lot of them. There are several options on how to proceed: a) much of this info can be worked into the “Evolution” section with the Main production variant section entries reduced to not much more than quantities and delivery date range; b) all of the Main production variant section entries can be worked into “Evolution” and the material removed from the Variants section; c) all of the variants can be moved to a separate article, with minimalist entries in this article; or d) whatever good idea you may have.

3) ~~Do we really need a Current sales proposals section (or a renamed section that appropriately also covers the old unsuccessful ones presently included)? Some of this is real crystal ball stuff.~~ OBE as this section has since been moved to List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators.

4) Should we update the Specs to the Block 50/52, a more relevant model?

5) Other considerations?

6) [NEW] Do we have a standard or preference for which system we use for classifying radar frequencies (e.g., IEEE or NATO), particularly for military aircraft radars? I'm unclear on whether I should use X band or I/J band for fire control radars.

Appreciatively, Askari Mark (Talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fnlayson

Comments: Agree with no. 2. I would like to see a summary of the newer variants and upgrades in the Evolution section. I'm thinking of it being similar to what we did with the 747 newer variants in its development section. I think the current variants entries should move to a separate article. Keep a list of main variants and ones with separate articles. The sales proposal section could be rename "Future operators" and limited to users with it on order or in discussions to buy. Remove possible interest entries at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! My thoughts have been leaning toward providing a more summarized rendering of the major model/block (and Major upgrade?) sections in the Evolution; this would be complemented by moving the current detailed information on production variants, other variants, and major modifications to a separate, new article. What would be in the Evolution section would indeed be reminiscent of that in the Boeing 747 article, although a little more formally structured by model (A/B, C/D, E/F). The revised variant/mod sections would contain brief 1-2 sentence descriptions, with a link to the respective section of the new article. Do you think that would work well?

My preference on the Operators and Sales sections is to move as much of that material as possible to the List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators article, leaving only a bare listing of operators like that in UH-1 Iroquois#Operators and retaining an (updated) operator map, since these elements have become fairly standard. (Much of this you’ve just recently done.) Askari Mark (Talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SDY

A daughter article for the "normal" variants would probably handle some of the length issues. Operational history could also make a reasonable sub-article, possibly included with the operators article (rename might be needed).
I would limit the sales section to operators with actual orders for aircraft. The operators list has its own article and repeating the information here may be redundant. The map is a nice visual aid and a two sentence blurb giving users in generality should be kept, but the list can go to its own article.
Popular culture can probably be dropped entirely, maybe add a generic one-liner about its popularity in flight simulators in its stead. SDY (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion about migrating the Operational history section to a separate article is a novel and interesting idea! Can you point me to a successful example (in terms of A-class or FA-class promotion) so that I can see how little material and what types of basic info should be left behind?

Re: the Operators and Sales sections, see my response above to Fnlayson. Do you think that approach will work okay?

I’m no fan of PopCult sections, but the extant material is brief and summary, so it doesn’t particularly bother me. However, since I’m only familiar with three of the listed films and none of the flight simulator games, I lack any insight as to which, if any, of those productions listed may be non-notable (with respect to PopCult, not whether they should be the subject of articles themselves). Are there any that should be culled?

Thanks for your advice! Askari Mark (Talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any examples, so can't help you there. I think the proposal above makes good sense. Pop culture is one of those things that shows up in articles that is usually too much like a trivia section, and I'd reserve it for "major" associations like the B-52 and Dr. Strangelove (a broadly-recognized movie where the plane is a major plot element, not just "that plane in the background"). SDY (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Aircraft pop culture policy pretty much says that now. I doubt if there are any background appearances listed, but some may not be major or notable either. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find that policy particularly helpful, especially with regard to flight simulator games. These usually do focus on the airplane in question. Does their potential notability (for our uses) then derive from sales popularity? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in games is mostly a function of sales, but there are exceptions (overhyped games that flopped, cult classics, etc...). If a game has been mentioned more than in passing by the mainstream media (not the dedicated gaming press), then I would call it "notable enough." I'm not aware of any flight simulators that really meet that level of fame, though Google Earth is a contender. SDY (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On flight sims other regular editors have kept the ones where an aircraft type is the only one featured (ex. Falcon (computer game)) vs. a sim that has several aircraft to choose from. Being well known helps too. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I may pair it down then; if they're especially notable, I'm sure they'll find their way back in. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost a year old at this point, but I'll toss my two cents in. The pop culture section seems very managable as is right now. I think it's fine. SidewinderX (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.