Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/102nd Intelligence Wing

102nd Intelligence Wing

After a rather quick FAR that failed, I figured that this would be the good way to go. Any suggestions that could help improve this to FA-class would be marvelous. Thank you in advance for any help that you may bring! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a FAC that failed. (Could someone post the link? Wikipedia is slow for me today, and I'm headed out to the Fort Bragg museums). I didn't look closely, but most of the concerns raised there seemed valid to me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06

The link is at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/102nd_Intelligence_Wing/archive1. Kevin, as I said last time, you've got a whole long list of recommended changes in the several reviews this article has had. Have you carefully incorporated all the changes that were suggested? If so, this should be a relatively easy process; if not, you need to consider withdrawing this review, making the changes, and then resubmitting. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did with the exception of a few, and I noted why I didn't at that time. Unless I am missing something pretty blatent, I have done all that I can think of but apparently others are finding stuff as we speak so I want to be more careful before submitting it again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I've just reexamined the lead paragraph, and found a repeating sentence about starting operations at Logan AP. I fear that a number of such other errors may reoccur in the text. Tell me, have you ever printed out the text section only, taken it away from the computer, sat down, and read it throughly? Right now I fear that we'll all say just go back to the last review, if I've found three major copyedit errors in the first five paragraphs. I'm sorry to be this blunt, but I believe that such a print-out-and-read approach might help you to be able to improve your own writing. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I will try at some point in the next day or so. The only problem with that idea I fear is that I am so ultra familiar with the text that I won't notice anything wrong with it. I am much better at being an outside reviewer on other pages as it doesn't have me literally all over it. I know that my writing isn't the greatest, but I really want others to look it over for me because I fear that otherwise I will not catch things since I am used to myself. Also, please don't fear being blunt as I would rather have that over lies or sugarcoating of the truth. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean to a certain extent. Also, I thought I fixed the text issues in the emblem section but apparently that edit didn't save and I didn't notice until now. I'll tackle these issues later on today then. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAke sure you print out and read the entire text, would be my advice. Ignore the pics, tables, refs etc, concentrate on the text. Make some changes in longhand - stay away from the computer - and fiddle with it until it reads well. You can upload a draft of the text-only to any user draft page later and I'll take a look if you like. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get to it in the next few days. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I just finished tweaking and redoing some things. I now see why you wanted me to go through it because there were a lot of mistakes. It should be good now, but it just needs a copyedit from someone else because I will only re-write it into my own way of writing, which is incidentally what is there right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Normally, I just do copyediting, but it's not ready for copyediting yet, the problems (at least at the A-class level) go deeper. The bibliography has just two books, and I'm not sure, but judging from their names and the way you used them, they seem like primary sources to me. The other references are online, and of varying quality. My overall impression is: you've done good work, but this isn't really what we're looking for at A-class (despite the fact that it's passed A-class ... so I could be wrong). We'd like to see a variety of authoritative, secondary sources supporting the article. Also, the tone of 102nd Intelligence Wing#Emblem is rather POV-ish (the quoted material includes "excellence required of Air Force personnel" and "the unit has consistently excelled"), and we don't generally use large block quotes unless the reader needs to get special insight into the quoted material. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I might be able to use my offical EFOIA information, but that would require digging for information in my house. Those two books, as I have said on other reviews, are holdovers from the creation of the page (in fact they are probably the only thing that hasn't changed in terms of text). Virtually every Air National Guard wing page probably has them listed somewhere. If you want, I can re-write that emblem section and I am actually more than willing to do such a thing. Is there anything else that you want me to do? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing the emblem section and finding respected secondary sources is all I'm looking for, but other reviewers will probably have more specific requests. I'm mainly a copyeditor. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that sometime in the next day or so. I also added a bunch of books which are viewable on Google Books in the bibliography so you are more than welcome to comment on those. Thanks again for everything! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just re-wrote the emblem section. If you could review that and tell me what you think, that would be rather swell. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

102nd_Intelligence_Wing#Description describes exactly what we see in the image. I don't personally deal with alt text, but alt text is for describing images for people who are listening to a screen reader or recording of the page. Someone who can see the image doesn't need to be told what's in it. Just mention the parts that you need to mention in the symbolism section. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all fixed! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Okay, we don't seem to be getting a lot of reviewers dropping by our peer review these days, and I don't think the process is very helpful unless you get different reviewers handling different issues. I think I'll stop participating here and stick to A-class and FAC. I'm not sure where you go from here, because I'd still like to see this article getting some reviews before we try FAC again; I'll ask over at WT:MOS whether a review of the A-class status is the way to go. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... I meant WT:MHC not MOS, and I dropped the ball on this one, I'll go ask now. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Kevin, unless you've used the books that you've found in the article, do not place them in a bibliography. Split the setup into references and all the ones you haven't used go into Further Reading. This is the way the MOS dictates. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just put them there so a user could look over them. I think they all can be used since they all have facts that back up something but I'll get around to that soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

I have the following observations/suggestions for improvement. Please note, I did not read the whole article word for word, I just had a general look (it is quite late here now):

the first paragraph in the History/Origins section needs a citation;
in the Cold War section, this sentence needs a citation: "The 67th Wing was assigned to Air Defense Command";
in the Cold War section, there is a contraction: "Although the Massachusetts Air National Guard wasn't federalized for the Korean War". I suggest changing to "was not" - sounds more formal;
in the Berlin Wall Crisis, this sentence needs a citation: "Starting on December 5, 1961 the 102nd began deploying to Wheelus Air Base, Libya for gunnery training";
in the Berlin Wall Crisis, the third paragraph is uncited and should have a citation at least placed at the end of the paragraph;
in the Local defense subsection, the caption of the image is incorrectly punctuated. "F-15's From Otis" should be "F-15s from Otis" (no apostrophe and lower case);
in the Local defense subsection, this is not grammatically correct "at a distance of 10-mile (16 km)", nor is "the distance decreased to 5-mile (8.0 km)". It should be "at a distance of 10 miles (16 kms)" and "the distance decreased to 5 miles (8.0 kms)";
in the 9/11 terrorist attacks subsection, "Knowing that they couldn't await" - I suggest expanding the contraction;
in the 9/11 terrorist attacks subsection, this needs a citation: "Unsure of their target, they were directed to a holding pattern in military-controlled airspace Whiskey 105 off of Long Island to avoid New York area air traffic. At 9:03 am, United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower as the fighters were progressing to their holding position. The Northeast Air Defense Sector was not advised of this hijacked aircraft until 9:03";
as I stated in the last ACR, I believe that the level of detail in the 9/11 terrorist attacks subsection is too great and possibly consistutes undue weight;
in the BRAC 2005 and New mission subsections there are a couple of very small paragraphs which could probably be merged together to form larger paragraphs;
paired commas are required in a couple of places. For instance: "April 6, 2008 and was planned" (there should be a comma after "2008");
in the Bibliography section, the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. For instance, "US Air Force designations since 1978" should be "US Air Force Designations Since 1978";
the Bibliography probably should be sorted alphabetically by the authors' surnames;
per recent advice from the FAC process, the portal box/links should be placed at the top of the Notes section, not in the External links section. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get on this next week. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]