Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convair B-36/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Convair B-36

Self-nom. But still, Wow. It is a truly amazing article. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 05:59, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

• Support however, I do feel that the references/external links bit should be split into two sections (References and then External Links, not a combined section), but other than that I have no complaints. --Lan56 08:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the above comment. The 'Related Content' section might also be renamed 'See also', as that name is more common on the wiki. Phils 12:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Related content" is a standard section from the WikiProject Aircraft/page content guidelines. Many aircraft articles have it. Geoff/Gsl 22:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Like Geoff said. It's a standard that something like 600 of our roughly 1,500 aircraft articles conform to. --Rlandmann 10:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support looks damn good, think you can do this to B-26 Marauder ;)  ALKIVAR™ 11:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great article. kaal 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support I was delighted to see such a comprehensive article on an often-overlooked but very important aircraft. I've been pleased to be able to contribute. (btw, the Mistel reference was mine - forgot to log in.) Brendano 22 March 2005
• Support I just follow the other people here in their praise. Wim van Dorst 21:26, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
• Support - doesn't get much better than this. I've just edited the Specifications section to conform to WikiProject Aircraft guidelines. --Rlandmann 10:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support and pleased to as it's one of my favourite aircraft designs. Dbiv 12:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - reminds me of the stuff at Greg Goebel's site, [1] which is a Good Thing. Ooh, ooh, write one about the flying wing, you know, the one that was in 'War of the Worlds'. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Operational history contains numerous original or unattributed judgements. The entire article continues to a lesser degree, as phrases such as "was considered" are used without specification of who considered this so. The article says the aircraft was "arguably obsolete", but no mention is made of who considered it obsolete (the editor?). The following sentence labels the aircraft as revolutionary and apologises for problems: "Also, the groundbreaking design had a number of problems, as is normal in revolutionary aircraft." "It is highly unlikely any will ever fly again"--according to who? Blatant original research and POV: "Its little-used nickname Peacemaker was apt, because its mere existence, whatever its flaws, probably played a significant role in preventing World War III." Again, original research and assertion of opinion as fact: "It was never tested in combat, however, and it is impossible to say how well it would have fared." Weasel statement reflecting POV: "it is possible that its rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions were just as valuable." POV/unattributed: "could produce pictures of incredible clarity". 119 04:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Operational history contains numerous original or unattributed judgements. The entire article continues to a lesser degree, as phrases such as "was considered" are used without specification of who considered this so.

     Has been rectified

  2. The article says the aircraft was "arguably obsolete", but no mention is made of who considered it obsolete (the editor?).

     Now reads simply 'obsolete'. The description 'piston-engined aircraft in the age of jet fighters' should provide enough explanation.

  3. The following sentence labels the aircraft as revolutionary and apologises for problems: "Also, the groundbreaking design had a number of problems, as is normal in revolutionary aircraft."

     Now reads 'Like many aircraft before it that had pushed the envelope of size, the XB-36 had a number of difficulties. (Compare the B-29 Superfortress, which was plagued by engine problems, and the Boeing XB-15, which didn't have engines available powerful enough for a useful top speed.)'

  4. "It is highly unlikely any will ever fly again"--according to who?

     The factoid about 900 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air says it all.

     But again, according to who? If no aircraft fly with such a maintenance record, then that can be noted as fact alongside the 900 rather than stating it as an opinion. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

     Now stated as a fact.

  5. Blatant original research and POV: "Its little-used nickname Peacemaker was apt, because its mere existence, whatever its flaws, probably played a significant role in preventing World War III."

     Now reads 'Without the B-36, the Strategic Air Command would have lacked a feasible nuclear deterrent, potentially placing the United States at the mercy of the Soviet Union.' This statement is simple fact: after the B-36, the next longest range bomber had only enough range to make it halfway to Moscow, nowhere near enough to serve as an effective deterrent.

  6. Again, original research and assertion of opinion as fact: "It was never tested in combat, however, and it is impossible to say how well it would have fared."

     How is this POV? It is impossible to say how any plane would have fared in combat, if it was never used in combat.

     That is only your opinion. It may also be argued that based on an aircraft's characteristics, its effectiveness could be inferred. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

     This statement has since been rearranged by another user. The paragraph now reads ...the B-36's role as the United States' sole practical nuclear deterrent earned it the nickname Peacemaker in the opening years of the Cold War. Though it was never tested in combat, the Strategic Air Command defended its performance on the grounds that the few fighters that could reach the normal operating altitude of the B-36 were so lacking in maneuverability that the giant bomber could easily evade them.

     ('small' is too small for my old eyes to read - changed to italic) There is a long thread at the Cold War Vets forum on delphi (linked in External References) titled "The B-36 goes to war". It is filled with the comments and recollections of crewmembers who carried out the war-readiness missions. They were confident that they could have carried out their warfighting assignment. They are less confident that they would have survived the mission. Brendano 14:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  7. Weasel statement reflecting POV: "it is possible that its rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions were just as valuable."

     Now reads 'While it received all its publicity in connection to its role as a strategic nuclear bomber, it also engaged in rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions', with side comment 'Before the development of the Lockheed U-2, the RB-36 was the only plane with the range to fly into Asia from bases in the United States.'

  8. POV/unattributed: "could produce pictures of incredible clarity".

     The golfball stat provides an excellent explanation.

     But an explanation of your opinion. "Incredible" is a fairly sensational word. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

     Incredible clarity>>High resolution

  Ist das alles? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 19:27, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

• Support Oops - I've gone and edited over a whole bunch of Ingoolemo's rectifications, but I don't think I've introduced any new problems and a few things are better even (I was just merging in after an edit conflict). O well, I'm now familiar enough with this article to wholeheartedly support its nomination to FAS. -Lommer | ^talk 22:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support though I find the back-to-front dates confusing. Geoff/Gsl 01:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  There is ample precedence for them. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:32, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

  Only in technical documentation, as far as I'm aware. Can you name a single general reference work on aircraft that uses them? I can't. Actually, apart from Ingoolemo's contributions to Wikipedia, I've never actually seen this date format used in connected prose (outside of technical documentation). --Rlandmann 05:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. 119 06:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)