Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an article:

1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

Restrictions

1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators
	A-Class review		A-Class reappraisal
Closure takes place after minimum of five days	Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections	Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus	Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus	Demote • clear consensus to demote
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=kept	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record new class
The MilHistBot will take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see the full Academy course.

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Project Pluto

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Project Pluto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Introducing one of Wikipedia's stranger articles, an artifact of the Golden Age of Mad Science, which ran from roughly 1945 to 1970. It was fun to write. The project aimed to use a nuclear engine in a supersonic cruise missile. It would operate at Mach 3, or around 3,700 kilometres per hour, be invulnerable to interception by contemporary air defenses, and carry up to sixteen with nuclear weapons with yields of up to 10 megatonnes of TNT. What could possible go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Marking a spot. This will probably be a bit episodic. Nudge me if I seem to have forgotten about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The need to maintain supersonic speed ... meant that the reactor had to survive high temperatures and intense radiation." I can see how "The need to maintain supersonic speed at low altitude and in all kinds of weather meant that the reactor had to survive high temperatures and intense radiation" but why should the low altitude and the kind of weather raise the reactor temperature and radiation levels? Similarly in the main article.
• The second half of "Development" is probably not in summary enough nor non-technical enough terms for FAC, but it scrapes by my personal ACR threshold.

Down to "Test facilities" and so far it is an excellent read with very little to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

John S. McCain Sr.

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

John S. McCain Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The World War II admiral of Guadalcanal fame. "Slew" McCain and his son "Junior" McCain were the first father and son to become four-star admirals in the US Navy, although Slew's promotion was posthumous. (In fact, the only ever posthumous promotion to that rank.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D

This ACR seems malformed - the usual headings aren't in place.

This is a problem with our Template:WikiProject Military history. See Template talk:WikiProject Military history#A class preload boilerplate for deatils. MSGJ (talk · contribs) is working on it. In the meantime, I have added them manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to offer the following comments focused on the World War II section, with the proviso that I'm going to be travelling without Wikipedia access for a month starting next week.

I only just got back from Poland and Paris. Have a great time! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• The material in the 'Mariana and Philippine campaigns' section explaining the system where the command teams alternated is a bit unclear - there's too much detail.

  Y Elaborated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• This section is probably too long, which doesn't help readability.

  Y Broken up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The engagement described in the final sentences of the para starting with "Task Group 38.1 sortied from Eniwetok on 29 August 1944" actually refers to the Formosa Air Battle, not raids on the Philippines.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd suggest explaining the difference between a task group and a task force in the Third/Fifth Fleet

  Y Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• It would be good to explain the nature of the relationship between Hasley and McCain. From memory, historians tend to note that they made a good team but had roughly the same blind spots.

  Looking for something on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• More broadly, the article doesn't really convey the importance of the role McCain held as the commander of the most important part of the most powerful naval force in the world in 1944-45 (yet almost always with a very strong minded commanding officer in direct control of this force).

  Y Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The para starting wit "After replacing the damaged ships" is a bit unclear, and doesn't really capture the fact that the Third Fleet was in the wrong place at the wrong time due to Halsey's misjudgements.

  Y Elaborated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd suggest noting the South China Sea raid

  Y Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The 'Okinawa campaign' campaign section seems overly brief and is a bit misnamed. It should also cover the series of attacks TF38 made against Japan in the last weeks of the war. Notably, McCain strongly opposed the Attacks on Kure and the Inland Sea (July 1945) and was probably right given the heavy casualties incurred attacking ships that the Japanese could no longer use due to fuel shortages.

  Y Added more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Did the British knight McCain in recognition of his collaboration with the British Pacific Fleet?

  I believe so, but have not found a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

• In the infobox, when we already have we listed John S. McCain Jr. in the Children label, why have we listed Jr. again as Sr.'s son in the Relatives label?

  Y I don't know; another editor added it. Changed to "3" per Template:Infobox person. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "that caused destruction of": might "that caused the destruction of" be better?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "report to the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania on the West Coast": do we know where exactly on the West Coast?

  I have checked three different sources and all they say is "on the Pacific coast". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "escorting shipping": "ships" instead of "shipping"?

  "shipping" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "McCain left the San Diego on 26 May 1918": Do we know why?

  Y For a new assignment. Changed wording to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to U-boat on first mention in the Early career and World War I section?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "consisted of VF-4...": perhaps we could rephrase this to clarify that these were squadrons? I had to click on the VB-4 link to confirm they were.

  Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "could be released from 200 to 300 feet": What was the earlier range of the Mark 13s?

  Y Clarified that this refers to altitude, not range. It had a maximum range of 6,300^x. ("Mk XIII Aerial Torpedo". National Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved 16 October 2024.) Is this worth adding? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce and link Knox and Halsey on first mention instead of second?

  Y Already linked on first mention. Unlinked on second. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "completion of a new airfield on Espiritu Santo": Are any dates available for this completion? Also, wouldn't "construction" be better than "completion", since this was a new airfield and not a brownfield one?

  Y The wording emphasises that McCain pressed to get it ready in time. The construction of the airfield without engineer units was a saga in its own right. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "revictualing": Gloss as "loading supplies", perhaps in brackets, for those not familiar with military terminology?

  Y Linked to the wiktionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding my support, all the issues I had raised have been addressed. Matarisvan (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• All images have appropriate licenses.
• Suggest adding alt text. I could do it if you're ok with that. Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Go right ahead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alts added for all images, the image review is a pass now. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Location of publication needed for Drury & Calvin 2006.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest running the IABot on the page once the huge current backlog is resolved.
• Will do spot checks tomorrow.

That was all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I will be doing 12 spot checks, ~10% of the total refs. Here go the spot checks:

• Ref #19: all 19 pages of the source being cited to support McCain's work at the Bureau of Navigation seems excessive. I think 1-3 pages would be enough, no?
• Ref #20: ok.
• Refs #23 and #25: I think citing all the pages of the sources is not necessary. We could just cite the sources without adding page numbers for these two refs, and the first one in this list.
• Ref #45: ok.
• Refs #62 and #63: ok.
• Ref #106: ok.
• Refs #107 and #109: dead links, you may have to remove these.
• Ref #110: ok.
• Ref #115: ok.

Matarisvan (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have substituted another newspaper for fn 107.
• fn 109 is a book and is not dead. Do we have the right reference number?
• 19, 23 and 25 are provided so the reader can look up the original works by McCain. The reader looking for a hard copy will need the page numbers. The text is supported by the secondary reference.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Lockheed YF-22

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Steve7c8 (talk)

Lockheed YF-22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. I believe this article can be considered for A-class. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• GlobalSecurity.org is not considered a reliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY)
• The details in the Notes section require references
• Mullin (1992) is not used
• fn 53 and 58 say "William" instead of "Williams"
• Hehs, Mullin, Williams: location?
• I am not sure what issue Flight International (1990) refers to.
• fn 37, 45, 55: page numbers?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• That Global Security image is a direct scan from the print version of the Code One Magazine article written by Eric Hehs, I'll adjust the citation accordingly.
• I've added references in the second, more detailed note.
• I'll move that to additional reading, but it's sort of a shorter summary that Mullin would expand his 2012 writing on.
• Fixed.
• Code One Magazine is for Hehs is based in Fort Worth, Texas. Mullin's publication is by USAFA affiliated Mitchell Aerospace Institute based in Arlington, VA. Williams' book publisher is based in Norwalk, CT or London depending on distribution.
• Those are listed again under bibliography with the full citation, I've moved it to references as the more appropriate section.
• Page numbers have been added for the first two, the last one doesn't have a page number.

Steve7c8 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, is the source review a pass now or not after Steve7c8's changes? Matarisvan (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All good now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:YF-22A Advanced Technology Fighter.jpg, File:Two Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22s.jpg, File:YF-22 and YF-23.jpg, File:F-22 Raptor resumes flight testing - 030328-F-0000C-001.jpg, File:Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22 USAF.jpg - USAF images - PD in the United States - okay
• File:An air-to-air overhead view of the YF-22 advanced tactical fighter aircraft during a test flight DF-ST-92-09938.jpg - DOD image - PD in the United States - okay
• File:F-22 RFI.jpg - USAF image - a source would be nice
• File:Lockheed Faceted ATF.jpg, File:Lockheed Model 090P 300x172.jpg, File:Lockheed Boeing General Dynamics DemVal Proposal 300x359.jpg, File:F-22 design evolution 595 to 645 200x592.png, File:NATF-22 305x170.jpg - no-free image - has Fair Use rationale - okay
• File:YF-22 Lightning II "Rzuty" outline drawing.png - Wikipedian-generated image - PD - okay

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Steve7c8, saving a spot, will add comments soon. Also, if you could wikimail me the two sources required for the YF-23 article, that would be great. Matarisvan (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan, do you still intend on reviewing this article for A-class? Steve7c8 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Steve7c8, my comments:

• "The ATF would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon": Might "The ATF would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design" be better? "On the horizon" seems too embellishing.
• Link to air superiority fighter?
• Link to delta wings on first mention instead of second?
• Add a ref for notes 3 and 4?
• Link to Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and General Dynamics?
• Link to side looking airborne radar?
• "is a prototype air vehicle": "was" instead of "is"?
• "are spaced away from": "were" instead of "are"?
• "is applied to the airframe shape": "was" instead of "is"?
• "due to escalating cost and the design": Might "due to escalating cost and because the design" be better?
• Link to angle of attack on first mention instead of second?
• Link to radome?
• Add Federation of American Scientists as the website for ref #29?
• Consider removing ref #39, since no links for it are available?
• Add [https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=08890404&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA9371744&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs] as the link for ref #47?
• Add [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/04/24/lockheed-wins-huge-jet-contract/89170285-d2c6-4c36-bb23-74dfae672626/] as the link for ref #57 along with its archive URL?
• Add [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269064311_F-22_control_law_development_and_flying_qualities] as the URL for ref #62 along with the DOI listed there?
• Add archive URLs for refs #63 and #64?
• Link to Barton Gellman in ref #57?
• Link to Jeffrey K. Harris in ref #62?
• Add archive URLs for Hehs 1998, Mullin 2012, Mullin 2019?

Matarisvan (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of the changes and suggestions. Also, Federation of American Scientists wasn't the original publisher of the F-22 test pilot report, it was originally a paper presented at a Society of Experimental Test Pilots conference, and the FAS link is where it can be found. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem. Adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Schierbecker

Hiking the AT. Connection may be sporadic. Apologies for any curtness or disorganization of replies.

• Lede should state that Lockheed was the prime.
• US or U.S.? Consistency needed.
• The distinction between WP:GENREF and "Additional sources" is not usually seen on well-developed articles. Might be better to merge the Bibliography and Additional sources.
• Personally my eyes tend to glaze over when an article contains too many dates. Maybe only mention the exact date if its important (and it's going to be on the test) Also does Halloween need to wikilinked?
• Would prefer less passive voice (e.g. not the Lockheed team was announced by Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice as the winner of the ATF competition.)
• delta wings and pilot-induced oscillation are wikilinked only on the second mention. wl "FY", "S-duct", "thrust-vectoring". YF119 and YF120 overlinked. Image captions could stand to have more wls. It isn't considered overlooking.
• Advise adding brief in-text description of the Packard Commission (e.g. that it was a commission of president Reagan.).
• "SR-71-like" needs an en dash per MOS:SUFFIXDASH
• Re: the accident: were any design issues identified and corrected as a result?
• Pratt & Whitney and General Electric had earlier been awarded contracts to develop the propulsion systems with the designations YF119 and YF120 Respectively? These engines were requirements for the selected aircraft? Furnished as government-furnished equipment? How and when was it determined to go forward with the YF119?
• Give nationality of SR-71/YF-12. Lockheed as designer seems relevant especially given that they proposed something like it.
• The top four proposals, later reduced to two, would proceed with Dem/Val. They selected four, then down selected to two? Who were the four? Or they had plans to select four contenders, but decided to only choose two?
• Because the requirement for flying prototypes was a late addition due to political pressure, awkward. consider rephrasing.
• The seven bids were submitted in July 1986. Were Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas the only teams that submitted proposals? Which teams submitted more than one proposal? Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics each submitted a proposal or proposals? Article makes it sound like Lockheed was the only contractor that responded during the concept development. True? Mention that Lockheed developed the F-117.
• Sherman Mullin would credit the Lockheed proposal's system engineering volume for the top rank. confused about what this means. Mullin says Lockheed got the contract for its manufacturing capabilities? Implying Northrop did not?
• Having performed poorly during ATF concept exploration while also losing the ATB to Northrop who had a curved surface design, meaning more clear if this is split in two sentences.
• Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure Try: "Furthermore, under Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy".
• Were there any differences in the stealth coating between the YF-22 and F-22?
• However, much of the scrutiny fell on Lockheed's Configuration 090P Scrutiny from whom?

Schierbecker (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Added statement that Lockheed is prime contractor
• Standardized on "U.S."
• As far as having two sections for generic references and additional sources, I think the latter is for works that's not directly cited in the body, but are useful further reading.
• I'll the importance of specific dates for other editors to judge, I personally don't think it's too cumbersome and having month and year is pretty generic, I feel.
• For PAV-2 crash, the issue is that the flight control system was immature and not ready for low-altitude demonstration flights. The YF-22s never flew after that and the F-22 air vehicle is also markedly different.
• The ATF engine effort was a separate parallel effort that pre-dated the ATF itself by a few years, and during Del/Val it was brought under the control of the ATF SPO. The ATF engine was also being competed which is why there were two YF-22s and YF-23s, one for each engine option. The winner of the engine competition would be announced alongside the ATF winner.
• The ATF SPO had originally planned to select 4 companies as finalists for Dem/Val, but this was judged too expensive and unnecessary, so they reduced it to two.
• I added the seven bidding companies as a note.
• System engineering, which involves your plans for conducting trade studies and requirements reviews, was an area that not many companies focused on at the time, but Lockheed did. It was only after being selected that the companies found out how much the ATF SPO valued system engineering plans in their proposals.
• Scrutiny on Configuration 090P from the design team.

Steve7c8 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• The ATF request for information (RFI) was sent out to the aerospace industry Passive voice. "The [SERVICE BRANCH] published the ATF RfI..." would be more appropriate.
• Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure eventually announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat as the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft. I take it that the Navy was reluctant to join the Air Force program? This could be more clear.
• "red-teamed" as a verb is confusing. Consider ways to rephrase. Alton D. Slay led the red team for Lockheed or the government? Not sure what "Systems engineering volume" means.
• stealth requirements were drastically increased passive voice again.
• [CITY] comma [STATE] comma.
• TBD. 173.243.167.206 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Fixed.
  • Yes, the Navy was somewhat reluctant to join NATF due to their experience with the TFX (F-111B) in the 1960s.
  • Alton D. Slay served as an independent consultant to "red-team", or pick holes, the proposal, which contains many volumes, including one for the systems engineering plan.
  • Fixed.

  Steve7c8 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Schierbecker, hope you're ok on the AT what with the ongoing hurricane. Whenever you're free and well, could you add any other comments you may have or your vote? Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I addressed most of her feedback and incorporated some of the suggestions. That said (and I accidentally left this out in my earlier reply), for some of her points where she asked for additional context or clarification, I feel those fit better in the Advanced Tactical Fighter article where I did expand on them. Steve7c8 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steve7c8, I think you should wait for another reviewer since we need 3 supports for promotion and we have 2 now. Schierbecker might not be able to comment for some time since she is in Appalachia which was hit hard this hurricane season, hopefully she is ok and is in all likelihood not getting internet service. Matarisvan (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am in Vermont and safe. I appreciate the concern. :) In a bit of a tricky situation internet-wise. I'll be able to make short comments and see this review through though. More comments tomorrow.Schierbecker (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Schierbecker, we're still waiting on your comments, but there's no rush if the adverse weather hasn't subsided. Matarisvan (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• Can we have a footnote for note 1? Also: since it is in the lead, it ought to be in the body somewhere
• "missileer" normally refers to a missile crew. I haven't seen it used this way before. Is it correct?
• "Lockheed's design team, lead by Bart Osborne under its Skunk Works division" -> "lead" should be "led". Also: "under" is awkward here; suggest "of" or "from"
• Link "supercruise", "thrust", "faceting", 'aerial refueling", "fleet air defense", "maiden flight", "radome"
• "radar range testing at Helendale, California" -> Parenthetical comma after "California".
• "resulting in engine thrust increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class" -> Delete "class"?
• "Due to Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy joined the ATF program initially as an observer and in 1988 announced that it would procure a variant/derivative of the winning design as the NATF to replace the F-14." Hasn't this already been mentioned? Suggest moving "Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure eventually announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat as the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft.[8]" down here. Also: what was the reason/rationale for this Congressional pressure?
• "The second YF-22A (PAV-2, s/n 87-0701, N22YX) with the P&W YF119 made its maiden flight on 30 October at the hands of pilot Tom Morgenfeld." -> Suggest "chief test pilot Thomas A. Morgenfeld"
• "the Lockheed design was also seen as more adaptable to the Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF)" -> "NATF" has already been introduced above, albeit with a different definition. Resolve this.

Looks very good. Only a few issues to resolve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of the changes and suggestions. A few notes:

• I don't think the definition of faceting as defined in the main article is the same as for the design method for stealth aircraft.
• I'm not sure where to incorporate note 1 in the body, since it occurred well well into EMD, while this article primarily covers the Dem/Val phase.
• Missileer was how Lockheed described the CL-2016, per Hehs 1998.

Steve7c8 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

USS Texas (BB-35)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)}

USS Texas (BB-35) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

For ease of reading the concerns raised by voorts were as follows:

• A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{sfn}}s. Some claims are cited to irreputable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71) and primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
• A2: The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources. It also lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024. Additionally, given the sourcing issues, the article may not be factually accurate.
• A3: The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with "unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources". Unnecessary detail is when an article goes off on a tangent and becomes for a time about something other than the topic. Use of primary sources is acceptable, and so long as they are about the subject, is not unnecessary detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. It's not always true that primary source use leads to unnecessary detail. But, if secondary sources haven't covered an aspect of something, there might be a WP:BALASP issue if primary sources are overused. Here, 18 out of the 116 (or ~16% of) references are to primary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have initiated work on this article. I have finished the biblio formatting and hope to get this rewrite done soon, hopefully within a month from now. Matarisvan (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'll be travelling for a month without Wikipedia access from the end of this week, so will only comment (mainly on the World War II section which I'm most competent to comment on) rather than vote on whether the article should be delisted. My comments are:

• The DANFS references should be replaced as it's no longer considered to be a reliable source. It should be straightforward to do this for an article on a very famous battleship.
• The multiple notes and citations in the lead are undesirable, and the notes are unreferenced
• There's too much detail on the current restoration work on the ship in the lead
• The construction section should cover the context in which the ship was ordered (e.g. why was the USN ordering battleships at this time? What role were they intended for? Was Texas ordered as part of a broader program, etc)
• "At that point in the war, the doctrine of amphibious warfare was still embryonic. Many Army officers did not recognize the value of prelanding bombardments. Instead, the Army insisted upon attempting a landing by surprise" - I don't think that this is correct, and illustrates the limitations of DANFS. The US Army was hoping that the French in North Africa wouldn't fight and didn't want to fire the first shots as a result. This was a largely successful strategy.
• "Texas was one of only three U.S. battleships (Massachusetts and New York) that took part in Operation Torch" - this doesn't read well, and "only" is a bit odd given that three battleships is rather a lot!
• I'm not sure if the para on Walter Cronkite is needed: this is much more significant to the article on the journalist than that on this ship.
• Why was Texas still escorting convoys through the North Atlantic in 1943 and 1944? The Royal Navy had largely ended the use of battleships for this purpose in the North Atlantic by this time as the remaining German surface fleet was focused on Norway and the convoy routes to the Soviet Union.
• The 'Rehearsal' section would benefit from a trim and a better title
• The 'Battle of Cherbourg' section doesn't really say what the outcome of this engagement was
• It would be good to say more about the experiences of the ship's crew
• The '1988–1990 dry dock period' section is too detailed
• The 'Dry berth project' section seems over-long
• Ditto the 'Leaks' section Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)