Talk:F-104 Starfighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the F-104 Starfighter article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article F-104 Starfighter was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 13, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] F-104S in sub-article

It's time to create a sub-article on this variant as its mention in the main article is disproportionate to other variants and their history. Whatdoyathin'? FWIW Bzuk 12:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

Good idea. We could also do sub-articles on both the sections for variants and operators. Get some input from some of our regulars (like BillCJ, Dimitri, and Piotr). I don't have any history on the S variant, but glad to assist, research pics and refs, etc. A buddy at the Museum has a personal library of 104s, I'll call him this morning. I have added the catagory for needing attention to the main article and added this to the WikiProject Aircraft to-do list, too. LanceBarber 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I was already in the process of creating the F-104S sub-article while you were writing this last note LanceBarber, but named it "F-104 Starfighter in Italian service". I merely copied the text from the main page for simplicity, but any editors who wish to refine and/or expand it would be welcome. --Red Sunset 16:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed, lol, and dropped u a note on ur talkpage. LanceBarber 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Got it! Much appreciated LanceBarber. We'll see what happens now. --Red Sunset 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I contacted the F104 Crew Chief, and we'll do some research this Tue. After we get some more input, we may want to redirect you first start article as a S-variant article with history/tech-specs/service etc. Look at other aircrafts sub-articles for examples and commonality. LanceBarber 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The pre-Stefo Canadair CF-104 page is a good example of what to shoot for. You can even copy the major elements (Infobox, specs, related content), and not have to change that much. I assume the -104S page will be covering the ASA unpgrades? - BillCJ 23:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I went ahead and added the sections to the page, thought I haven't written a proper lead as yet. Thanks to BZuk for adding that nice snow-covered mountains pic to the infobox! O also moved the page to Aeritalia F-104S to matche Canadair CF-104, thoush I'm OK with F-104S Starfighter if someone perfers that title. - BillCJ 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I gathered notes and refs on the 104S/ASA, will begin to add them shortly. LanceBarber 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Does the page just cover the F-104S in Italian service, or should the Turkish use be copied over as well?Nigel Ish 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Originally the page was created to cover the F-104 in Italian service, ie the 104G & S; but now that it has steered towards the S as the featured variant I suppose that the Turkish use could be included, with a change to the page title (remove "Aeritalia"), and to the sub-article's link on the main F-104 page. --Red Sunset 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
(pre-Stefo BillCJ! Tut-tut! [chuckle])
As far as I can tell from my sources, Turkey purchased its most F-104Ss directly from Aeritalia. Thus, I see no problem using "Aeritalia" in the name, as it is the company that built all the 104Ss. However, I won't oppose a rename, as it's not a big issue. - BillCJ 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair point BillCJ, no need to change the page name. --Red Sunset 20:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VJ101

Treat me gently guys, this is my first visit! I have been researching the F-104 for over thirty years and hope to add some facts to this article once I've got the hang of editing.

I agree with an earlier writer that the reference to the VJ-101 should be removed, it is not an F-104 variant. Cheers. Nimbus227 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the VJ-101 as a variant of the F-104 as it very clearly was not. I have linked to this aircraft's own article in 'comparable aircraft' which says the same. Nimbus227 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XF-104 New article

I have added a new article, Lockheed XF-104. I felt it deserved a page of its own, it borrows from this article and expands on those two aircraft. Cheers Nimbus227 00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to those editors who have improved the XF-104 article. Nimbus227 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-104G CCV

I would like to add information on the F-104G CCV (Control Configured Vehicle) which was a modified F-104G fitted with an extra F-104 tailplane behind the cockpit, rear fuselage ballast weights and a partial 'fly-by-wire' control system. I was wondering where best to place it in the article, under 'variants', at the bottom of the page? Any ideas? Nimbus227 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Variants usually describes versions of the aircraft and it would fit here although it is really more of an experimental modification. FWIW Bzuk 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC).
Yes, it is a bit tricky. Under 'variants' it does say principal variants which put me off putting it in there. The CCV was quite a strange looking version of the Starfighter and probably quite important in the development of 'Fly by wire' technology and its link to the Eurofighter.

Might put something together in the sandbox until we can work out where it can go.Nimbus227 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be added as a paragraph at the end of the 'Design and development' section. --Red Sunset 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like I could be on my way after problems with the XF-104 article Nimbus227 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mergefrom|Lockheed XF-104

That article has been nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockheed XF-104, and it has been suggested that it be merged with this article.--victor falk 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it all a bit strange really. By the proposers reason the F-104S (basically an F-104 with different avionics and missiles), the CF-104 (admittedly an F-104G for Canada) and the CL-1200 Lancer (F-104 with a high wing/low tail) should all also be tagged. Merging the XF-104 in to the main article would lose links to Tony LeVier etc, and make the article longer where it is already struggling. Several articles now link to the XF-104 where they did not before. I notice the F-4 Phantom has its own page for variants and that is fairly cluttered.

Intrigued to see what happens but thanks to those who support the article remaining anyway. Nimbus227 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose the merge and question the reasoning behind the merge/afd. The editor who proposed the merge is not a regular submitter and has recently emerged from an indefinite ban as a sockpuppet. FWIW Bzuk 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC).
Issue seems to be resolved now with AFD nomination being removed. Nimbus227 23:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested way forward

After my recent XF-104 tribulations I just had a good read through this article again. It looks like it needs a good clean up before anything else is added, some of it is very good (operators) and some of it is quite bad (pilot impressions). With the XF-104 article apparently staying I would propose to shorten the development part as the text is duplicated to some extent (I did say I had copied it over) and add a sub heading for YF-104A development programme which was the real start of the F-104 in service to replace the missing development text(to be expanded in good time). Instead of 'design' perhaps 'technical description' of the typical F-104G would be better. A new section on 'safety record' to merge the existing comments and work on it to put the figures in to context. From my research the majority of Luftwaffe accidents were CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) or engine exhaust nozzle failures followed by the usual bird strikes, spatial disorientation etc. Can we put a 'pie chart' in to illustrate this? I have a list of every German accident and its cause for instance which might open some eyes. Have to say thanks to all the contributors along the way but the article has become fairly messy. Last thought, you can always revert if you want to! Cheers Nimbus227 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a go at tidying this article, the production table is confusing and is in error by some 48 aircraft (probably does not include the last batch built by MBB). I will try to make a better one. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestions Nubis (LOL)! Lots of people with different styles do lead to a little inconsistency and lack of tidiness, so a "single hand" at the wheel ought to straighten things up a bit...I know that you've been wanting to get to grips with this one for a while; so best of luck! --Red Sunset (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just about done the production table in the sandbox, should go in soon, would like to do another for the operators, hopefully it is not too much info. The worse bit is the Pilot impressions section, I have several accounts of the actual handling qualities (one from Roland Beamont who didn't like it), once it's tidied a bit there needs to be a new section on 'Safety record' or something similar where the facts can be shown. I really don't like the nicknames section either although many of those names are accepted, perhaps it needs better referencing (I have no reference to the Italian names apart from 'Spillone' which I believe is 'hatpin' for instance). There is no mention of the ZELL (Zero Length Launch) programme which is fascinating. I think this article could be a GA with some work. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Good progress I think, we really need an article created for the MAP, Military Assistance Program or Military Aid Program whatever it was called as it is mentioned many times in this article. I can't find anything on it in WP unless I am looking in the wrong place. Was quite a significant program I would guess. I am toying with the idea of changing the operator air force names to their own language equivalents (Koninklijke Luchtmacht for the Netherlands for instance). It won't work for all of them, is there a convention? Nimbus227 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Good work so far, Nimbus. It's amazing what can happen when disruptive influences are finally removed. As to operator name language, the usual convention has been to use English equivelants, as in most cases that is also the name of the article on said operator. The notable execption is Luftwaffe. I see no problem, however, listing the native language equivelant at first mention in the text, after the English name. For example: The F-104 was used by the Royal Netherlands AIr Force (Koninklijke Luchtmacht) from 1234-5678.
Yea, looking much better. I believe the Mil History style guide says to use the English translation/equivalent for names in other languages. See WP:MHMOS for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Carriage return, kerching! Apologies for the blank spaces and I know the images are not in the right places now either, I have been at this for 12 hours now but it's getting there. I am developing a new safety record section in my sandbox which is necessarily quite long, just a bit worried that the whole article will end up too long but then again it was a fairly significant type worth a page or two. Will stick with English air force names, can't spell Koninkly Luktmakt anyway! Is it worth tagging this article with the 'cleanup in progress' template? Nimbus227 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Think I will give up for tonight and have another go tomorrow, Rome wasn't built in a day etc (excuse the weak pun).

Very open to any suggestions and very glad you guys are around to put me straight and help with the formatting which I am still quite bad at. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I was thinking of putting the Cost table right below the production table. The info is tightly related. Does that sound alright? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we need it? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
Well, I lied earlier and kept going, I did not quite realise what a mess it was in (duplication everywhere), hopefully I have not made it worse!

Cost table...mmmm, well it is sort of interesting but incomplete, would be nice to keep it in some form. I have European costings somewhere including components. Pooped. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over-referenced now?

I noticed the note list is rather long, much longer than than the F-4 Phantom as an example, should we take some out or can we hide the refs in a collapsible list (thought I saw a discussion about that somewhere?) There is a format problem in the Specifications section, the bullet points are out of line and I can't see what is causing it, perhaps someone can have a look. Still can't find anything on the MAP, there is a stub on ZELL but not much info at all. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't think you should worry too much about it being overreferenced. Some of the footnotes for subsequent pages could be combined though. Such as using "Jackson 1976, p. 20-22." multiple times for example. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok! Will have a look at that, perhaps the Italian references need trimming or replacing first. Have we done enough work to remove the article from the 'needing attention' list, is there a tag somewhere? Nimbus227 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Surely so! I don't see any special tags like that now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well I went to this page, Category:Articles needing attention but can not edit it, as it is a category it must be seeing a tag (it is showing a 'needing attention' in the category box on the bottom of this page) perhaps someone clever can fix it. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, found it in the WP Aviation banner and removed it. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Well done, thought it would be something sneaky like that, I went through the list of articles needing infoboxes, quite a few actually had them, it was just a matter of changing 'no' to 'yes' in the code on the talk pages, all clever stuff. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Good Article nomination

I've failed this GAN for the following reasons:

  • Please expand the lead so that it adequately summarises the article. The lead as of now only mentions a sliver of its history.
  • Y Done Expanded to the maximum of four paragraphs recommended in WP:LEAD Nimbus227 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The bulk of the article is woefully under-referenced. Sections like Design and development, Variants, and Production overview need sources badly, because I can't verify the validity of the information. Those are not the only sections that need refs; the whole article needs a message.
  • Images—a number of these have no source. Linking directly to the image is not a valid source; you must link to the original web page for which the image is found.
  • Y Done All current images have been individually checked and are fully licensed and sourced, the single disputed image was US public domain and its source has been clarified. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please put all navboxes and external links at the bottom of the article.
  • Y Done Moved the single external link found, projectwide Navbox revision in progress by WP:AIR team. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that my review was in error, please submit a good article reassessment. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Lead

Looks pretty complete near as I can tell. Some details can be removed provided they are covered elsewhere in the article. For example the aircraft that replaced different F-104 variants could be omitted from the Lead. Also, did NASA operate other F-104 variants besides the N? The operator section says 11 104s of of different versions. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, NASA operated 'G's and 'TF's as well. Might try to tweak that, 11 aircraft is a minor fleet compared to the rest of its history. Will remove anything considered a detail. Some references are duplicated and I am trying to use the 'ref name' format but getting in to a bit of a pickle doing it as the article is quite big now (62kb) The first reference is actually a whole book title with ISBN that needs putting in the biblio section. Phew!! Nimbus227 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed this: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) flew a small mixed fleet of F-104 types in support of the X-15 and XB-70 projects. The F-104 continued to support the spaceflight programs until they were retired in 1994 and replaced by F/A-18 Hornets.

To this: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) flew a small mixed fleet of F-104 types in support of supersonic flight tests and spaceflight programs until they were retired in 1994.

Might want to add the details to the Operators section for NASA. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice, tis almost perfect now! Will have alook at the NASA operators section. I was toying with putting the other major manufacturers in the infobox (there is plenty of room for the infobox to grow downwards), the license part of production was fairly important. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I added some of that to the NASA operator entry. If you want to list the manufacturers, something like what's in the F-16 manufacturers is something similar to look at. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Think I will leave the manufacturer as it is, it could open another can of worms and there is no easy way to group the European Consortium unless they are all listed which would take the infobox off the bottom of the page. As I see it now it is just the references that need tidying hopefully, thanks for spending time on this. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I modified the statement on the F-104 accident rate compared to the F-100. Dukeford (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on what? Is that what the Bowman reference there says? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I had to revert it. The reference was specific to USAF use of Century Series fighters and did not mention fatalities if I remember correctly. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It looks suspicious when users don't provide an edit summary and make non-minor changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I spotted it straight away, I'm going to leave a little note. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed it. The original statement "A USAF study of other Century Series fighters revealed that the F-100 Super Sabre had an accident rate far worse than the F-104" is a biased statement that is a weak attempt to deflect attention away from the F-104's abysmal rate. True, the -100 DID have a worse accident rate; however, the USAF purchased 7 times the number of -100's. The statement I replcaed the original with contains the same info, but is unbiased. Dukeford (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To avoid confusion, the statement in the lead is a summarised version of the last paragraph of the 'Safety record' section, that text is derived from a copy of an original USAF graph document in the book. The study was based on 750,000 flying hours of each type. Accident rates have to be compared using quantities like flying hours to make them useful, numbers only indicate the quantity of losses not the real percentage. If Air Force A have 100 aircraft and crash 50 in 10,000 flying hours, they have lost 50 aircraft and the rate is 50%. If Air Force B have 200 aircraft and they crash 80 aircraft in the same flying hours it looks worse because they have lost more aircraft but the rate is actually less at 40%. It was the number of F-104 aircraft lost that attracted attention more than its accident rate, (228 of 916 in Germany alone). The statement in the lead is not biased in any way, it is a statement of referenced fact.
When I started editing this article there were unreferenced statements like 'they lost 50% of their fleet' or 'they lost nearly all of their aircraft' which were wildly inaccurate. Far from deflecting attention away from the accident history I added the 'Safety record' section and added six paragraphs on this topic that hopefully shows fairly and accurately that the Starfighter did indeed have problems and have also explained what the main ones were and what, if any, solutions were found to improve things. I also added the paragraph in the lead which is being discussed here which starts: 'The poor safety record....etc'. The English Electric Lightning had a rate far worse than the Starfighter according to references in many of my F-104 books which is in the group 'any other supersonic fighter' that was added, I also chose not to mention this in the article.
The statement that was inserted did not contain the same information, here it is: The F-104 experienced total accident rates, aircraft loss rates, and fatal accident rates higher than any other supersonic fighter aircraft except the North American F-100 Super Sabre. This left out the Century Series (replaced with 'any other supersonic aircraft'), it left out the reference to a USAF study and added 'fatal accident rate' that was not there before. I could have used the phrase 'The F-104 however was shown to have a lower accident rate than the F-100' which would still be true to the reference and not biased but would appear to be defending the type, that is why the word 'however' is not there (this actually makes the paragraph read slightly wrong). The word 'total' implied the accident rate of all 2,500 odd aircraft, not the rate of the relatively small number of USAF F-104s involved in the study. If the total rate was considered it would most likely be much better than the USAF study as they experienced many losses in the early stages of this aircraft's development.
I also added this: To understand the aircraft's safety record the causes of many accidents need to be examined in detail. I would hope that this is not an unreasonable statement. A very considerable number of losses were caused by various failures of the single J-79 engine which I have noted, unfortunately the aircraft that the engine was mounted in got the bad name, not the J-79. I also chose not to highlight this apparent paradox.
I am obviously a great enthusiast of this aircraft, mainly due to the advanced technology that the design used at the time, but I hope it is completely clear that I write about it in a totally neutral style (as I do any other article) and that I am using verifiable facts for important or contentious statements (also inserting inline references where there were previously none), which is I believe is what this project and Wikipedia is all about. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As I suspected, your interpretation of the accident data in Bowman's book is flawed. If you'll refer to the bottom of page 21, you'll note that the F-104 data was derived at 600,000 hours, not the 750,000 hour mark used by the rest. Also, the F-100 had 287 write-offs, out of 2200 airframes, with 91 fatalities. The 104 had 160 write-offs, out of 296 airframes, with 58 fatalities. So tell me, which rate is actually worse? I think it's pretty obvious. I like tha 104, too, but you guys really need to stop sugarcoating the fact that it was a dangerously flawed aircraft. It's terrific performance was extracted at a very high price.Dukeford (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you noted the discrepancy in the text. However, the entire accident rate comparison with other Century Series fighters needs to be re-thought and re-done. Dukeford (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox photo

I have thought for a while that the infobox photograph does not really do the type justice because it does not really show the planform, does not dominate the frame and has text at the bottom which looks untidy and can not be read until the image is opened. The b&w photo on the right does show the planform well and it is flying with tip tanks which most of the public will remember. You can try it in the infobox temporarily to see how it looks, I think there would be no contest if it was in colour (sorry, color!). Would appreciate thoughts on this and perhaps a little vote to be democratic, I am aware that the choice of lead photo can cause problems. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; an alternative colour photo might be better, or maybe the NASA photo could be cropped (if that's allowed) to remove the original caption and make the aircraft fill more of the frame. --Red Sunset 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India-Pakistan

I am temporarily parking the last paragraph of this section here until we can establish the accuracy of this information and remove or verify the POV comment (outgunned/outfought). It could have been the pilots that were outfought, not the '104', if they were indeed 'outfought'. I am also fairly sure that Jordanian aircraft were not involved, they were moved from Jordan during another middle east conflict for safety as they were under U.S. control, just need time to check it out. This section of the article has caused trouble in the past, I would be tempted to paste it all over to the main article on these wars but that would be an ommission in the aircraft history. I could have placed a tag on it but that would not help with cleaning up the article. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the F-104s were outfought and out-gunned by the IAF's fighters, and though Jordanian Starfighters were added to bolster the numbers, this did little to sway the air war in Pakistan's favor. It became the victim of the first supersonic dogfight in the subcontinent when an IAF MiG-21 shot down a Starfighter.[1] Up to four PAF Starfighters were shot down by IAF MiG-21s and another four were claimed by Indian ground fire;[2][3] and even Pakistan admitted three losses,[4] two to MiG-21s and one to anti-aircraft fire.[5][6]
Update: I am looking long and hard in to this to get a fair and accurate picture. So far I have established one F-104 shot down by a Mystere by cannon after being drawn in to a dogfight and one lost on landing in bad conditions during the 1965 conflict. Also one shot down by a Mig 21 (by missile) in 1971. PAF Starfighters shot down other aircraft not mentioned here, the most reliable report is of an IAF Canberra at night, a Breguet Alize is also mentioned. The Jordanian aircraft were moved to Turkey during the 'Six day war' but I have read from Indian sources (that can't be used here) that camouflaged '104's were seen which implies Jordanian aircraft involvement. The phrase 'outfought/outgunned' comes from the Bowman book but actually refers to the F-86 Sabre. Another development (from same source that can't be used) is that the PAF '104's fired countermeasure flares when fired at. Some mysteries here but it is important to try and unravel them. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This section sounds extremely POV to me. I would advise you to take a look here to find out the Pakistani claims about the F-104. Seems to me that some Indian editor simply copy/pasted the above info from Indian defense websites without caring for neutrality or presenting Pakistan's side of the story. --Zaindy٨٧ 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I put it here. I think I removed or toned down more POV stuff when I first came across the article and there was some edit warring going on in this section. I have spent a very long time looking into this recently as I would like to put it back in the article but most of the respected references contradict each other so I think we will have to accept a shorter, summarised version of events, even if I put in 'a referenced factually accurate version' it is likely to get changed again. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with the Pakdef source is that the source is mentioned as "Author: Unknown" which is shocking to say the least. Admittedly the Indian sources cannot be taken as the unbiased figures either. I'll try to get any reliable third party sources to resolve this. But be preapred to face contradictions, especially when it is Indo-Pak war, but the general idea is that the losses were like 3-4 F-104s and eventually the "silver bullets" (as Starfighters were dubbed) didn't help too much in the air war. I can get book sources for these in a couple of days. tx Idleguy (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Fricker's Wings of Fame Article gives losses in the 65 War of two F-104s (one to a Mystere and one to a crash landing against four kills (including two Mysteres and a Canberra), while in 1971 it says that Pakistan admitted two losing three (two to MiG-21s and one to ground fire), while India claimed five Pakistani F-104s and two Jordanian aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements before GA renomination

What are some improvements left to do before a GA renomination? Looks like the Lead is fairly complete. The External links and Navboxes in the proper place per the MoS now. I see no fact tags and most paragraphs have references. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not much, I put right some of the observations from the last attempt, others have also tidied since. Given a fair review I don't see why it should not pass as it is. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Good. Looks like referencing and clean-up stuff to me. I was hoping to just add something like "A total of" to the variant entry so the sentences wouldn't start with a number. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Good points; you could place "Number built" at the end of each perhaps, but I think the main need is to cite more references throughout the article – currently there are several paragraphs (possibly sections too; not sure without looking again) without any refs at all. --Red Sunset 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess the web based references need a 'retrieved' date, some don't have it. I'm sure I put a reference in almost every para after the GA flop. Reading WP:CITE earlier it does say that inline refs are only required when a statement is contentious or likely to be contested. Will try to fill the survivors section out a bit just to stop that image leaking into the next section. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Retrieved date is mainly if the web page is not dated. The USAF Museum links I added should be of help on referencing basic data. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the F-4 Phantom FAR, linking to personal websites (such as Joe Baugher) may cause problems with WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Not wanting to add cn tags, there are no refs to the Fuselage, Engine, Avionics, Armament or Two-seat trainer sections of "Design and development", the "International service" section, or the lead paras of "Safety record" and Aircraft general characteristics section. The info might not be contentious, but I think a reviewer would be looking for ways to verify the facts. Valid point BTW Nigel, but hopefully a different GA reviewer will be more understanding! --Red Sunset 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(Return) I can fix the unreffed paras, that text has been there for a long time. I can also substitute a book ref for all of Joe Baughers' stuff bearing in mind some reviewers/readers like to check for themselves arguing that they don't have access to the book. I am using different sources to Baugher but they confirm exactly the same information. For GA review I believe the article has to appear to be stable which it is not at the moment but this work is necessary. The para on India-Pakistan remains excluded, having spent many hours on this it is virtually impossible to get near the truth. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the League of Copyeditors has put an in-use tag at the top of the F-104 page: it'll be interesting to see what changes they make; and what they do ought to go some way in helping to achieve GA status although it already reads well to me; doubtless there'll be some useful lessons to be learned! --Red Sunset 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who copyedited this article. It did need a bit of work, but it has good info. But I'm telling you now, as a copyeditor/music Peer reviewer, this will NOT pass as GA. You need a LOT more references. I put a few [citation needed] tags, but it needs a lot more references. I think a Peer review could really help this article in things that I noted but don't really know how to fix, like the organization of the article, structure, etc. All these things are necessary for an article to be a GA. And FA, well, frankly, the process is a nightmare. Anyway, feel free to talk to me if you have questions about anything. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

It appears that we no longer need to discuss major changes to this article, the infobox photo has been changed for another one that does not show the planform or typical carriage of tip-tanks which is the reason that the previous image was inserted (please also see the discussion about this above, which I was courteous enough to ask and wait for consensus on). A high quality armament image has been moved in to the specs section, (now cluttering that section IMHO) and has left behind a low-quality B&W image incorrectly captioned as an F-104G (note the extra wing hardpoints), yes, I know I should have deleted that one. I recently removed a new unreferenced and incorrect 'origins' section after conferring with another editor. Nimbus (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the Lead image was a duplicate of another image further down, and the fact that two images in the text were on the same level, I assumed these were changes made my someone who didn't know what they were doing, and that cleaning it up didn't need discussion. Please remember that side-by-side pics don't work well at lower resolutions such as 800x600px, there is only enough room for a few letters between the pics. As for the Lead image, the "requirement" of a planform image is a new one that hasn't as yet caught on. I prefer the older style of choosing the best looking image, regardless of the planform, but generally using color images if a good one is available. Anyway, I'll let you do what you want here from now on without my interference, since I'm not generally used to running my improvements through discussion first. I understand the need for it in a GAFA article, but generally the people who need to have there changes discussed first won't do it anyway, such as the recent text additions you rightfully removed. - BillCJ (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)