Talk:F-4 Phantom II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star F-4 Phantom II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2008.
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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Good article; tweak suggestions

The section on "Flying the Phantom" seems a little thin. Here would be a thought to address that and other points that have been raised: either add another section at the same hierarchical level, or put in two subheads: "Admired Phantom Characteristics" and "Problems (mostly) fixed". As your "Flying the Phantom" section exists, it really has two paragraphs on one and two on the other. Besides smoke and the gun, some of the other variants were made due to perceived deficiencies. The latter could make a section. The positive pilot perceptions could use more content. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The Flying the section does not seem to fit in that well to me. But I think its length is alright. A separate Design (features) section would be a good addition. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • A couple paragraphs from the Overview section with the Flying section would make a good separate Design section. But, that'd take some reworking of the Overview section to fill in the holes left. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of the photos are out of context, the one in the Overview. I'll make a first attempt to fix.... follow-up if needed. LanceBarber (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC) added a few more refs and section adjustments. LanceBarber (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

I usually am reluctant to take out information. I did take out the sentence about McDonnell chairman being fascinated with the occult. It has nothing to do with the name. It also had a "citation needed" tag since September. A source even states that the chairman wanted the name for Persian god of light, which is not occult related. Somebody else wanted the name "Satan". Of lesser need for discussion is that FA usually don't have citation needed tags. The solution is both to find citations and to evaluate if the sentence really needs to be there. Archtransit (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Weasel

There is very little text about this. I think it was an important mission of the plane. Anyone think there should be more text about this? The wild weasel concept lives on today even though the planes have changed. Archtransit (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] factual error in intro corrected

In 2001, over 1,000 F-4s were in service with 11 nations worldwide.

This is not true. Look at the chart. By 2001, some countries, like Australia, no longer operated the aircraft. I am fixing the intro statement error. Having an error in the intro is embarrassing! Archtransit (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that same statement is referenced later in the article. Check that out before rewording/removing. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-4 Phantom II operators

A lot of good work ensuring the FA status guys!

Stefanomencarelli's comprehensive original text of the F-4 Phantom II operators article has had a thorough work-over but there are still several cite tags that need to be dealt with. Unfortunately he is serving a one-year block and so is unavailable to provide the relevant refs. Does anyone have reliable sources that will do the job?

Once these loose ends have been sorted out, the "Phantom in non-U.S. service" section of the F-4 page could be pared down to a basic summary of more-or-less equal size for each country, allowing "F-4 Phantom II operators" to become the "main article" rather than "further information". This would tidy the F-4 page slightly while at the same time reducing its weight a little. Any takers/comments? --Red Sunset (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a good idea to reduce (or remove) the text on operators on the main "F-4 Phantom II" page, because the "F-4 Phantom II operators" page (or list) has most, if not all, of the relevant information. Snowman (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. That operators article has a good bit of detail. Things can be summarized on the F-4 article because of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect tag

The redirect message: '"F-4" redirects here. For other uses, see F4.' is no longer true. F-4 redirect to F4 now. So that's probably why the message was removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Snow's explanation of "No primary page" makes no sense to me, though it probably means something to him that I'm not aware of. I've redirected it back here. - BillCJ (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe that was to account for the USS F-4 listed on the F4 disamb page. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean that he thinks that USS F-4 is just as common as F-4 Phantom? I think that position would be extremely hard to prove! - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A primary page is a page which is the obvious title when there are alternatives: see WP:DAB#Primary topic. There is a dab page for F4 with lots of possible links for "F4" or "F-4", so I think that "F-4" should be linked to "F4" and not to "F-4 Phantom II". The chess link is popular and there is possibility for confusion with USS F-4, F4D Skytrain, F4F Wildcat, F4U Corsair. Snowman (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Reithmaier

Does the F4 on this page link here? Did he contribute to designing the F-4 Phantom II? Snowman (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • F4 (no dash) is a disambiguation page. Don't know about the second part. I can't find where anything on the wiki pages about Rockwell Int. working on any F4x or F-4 fighters. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the Related content section from the bottom: Why?

I've moved the related content section and renamed it "related aircraft content" for the following reasons.

[1] Exerpts:
User:O has commented "Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway"

I believe the comment is directed at this type of section [2] .

My response was that there should be discussion at the WikiProject level. If it is at the article level, this creates a difficult situation trying to address the criticism of the "related content (similar aircraft list)" section, which is common to WikiProject Aviation articles and the purported Manual of Style violation. Since this is more of a policy decision, it may be better discussed here or at some other larger forum, rather than having the same question come up in every article. Archtransit (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has cropped up a while back and the consesnus that was arrived at was that there were some concessions to the unique characteristics of the Aviation Project article. It made sense to put this section below rather than treating it as a "See also" section. Bye the bye, there really are no MOS standards etched in stone (at least I hope not?!) that are uniformally applied. Commonsense does rule as well. Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC). (I'll take that last statement back if I am shown in error... {:¬∆)
MoS specifically states that there is no prescribed order for this material; only that if both "Notes" and "References" are included, these sections should appear next to each other. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, The Layout guide says on Standard appendices, that "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other." -Fnlayson (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed this dilemma with the assistant who helps the Director of featured article selection on following WikiProject guidelines and having a section that is not mentioned in the Manual of Style (possibly interpreted as a violation of MOS). The advice was to look at previous FA (they have that last section). The advice also was to see if we can meld the appendices so there is not a non-standard appendix.

To avoid a heated argument about FA's, I propose to do it on the F-4 Phantom II article (which is already an FA and where changing the appendix will not ruin the article to the point of removing it's FA star). Then you can comment on whether the meld is acceptable. If so, the meld could be a proposed new guideline for WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. Archtransit (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps the discussion should be kept there. See this diff [2] to see how a change to the appendix would look. Consider not reverting back and forth (no 3RR fights, please!) - this diff shows how it looks so you can comment. Archtransit (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As indicated earlier, this is not needed nor is it required. The admins that previously looked at the issues were able to see that the unique aspects of the aviation article allowed this variation. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lead paras

One of the comments of the FARC review is that the lead is far to short - I have knocked up a draft here. Please comment. Nigel Ish (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The Overview used to be the bottom of the Lead, I believe. That's why the current Lead in on the short side now. Your lead looks good to me. Covers everything I can think of. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Revised lead now in article.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that it should have been merged, which links the edit history of the sandbox page to this page. This is needed for copyright legal reasons. The method is clear in the merge instructions. It looks like that you have added it with a copy and paste. Snowman (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It being discussed at the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Does the Overview section really need to be there? It is almost replicating what the Lead does. I think it'd be better to move some parts of the Overview to the Lead and the rest to elsewhere in the article. What do others think? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Is an overview what should be in an introduction? Snowman (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really. The Overview section here sums up the whole article, like the Lead, but in more detail. The section has some good info. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption

A caption states: "An F-4F on display described as World's largest distributor of MiG parts." Does this mean that the F-4 Phantom II in the photo delivered parts as cargo? What years does this apply too? Is it the largest supplier outside the USA? Is there another reference to support this? Who wrote the notice in the picture? Was it written by a parts firm? Snowman (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not literal. It refers to shooting down MiGs so their parts are scattered all over, I believe. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I am puzzled by the caption as it stands. I think that it need to be rewritten with readers who do not known much about aircraft in mind and in very clear English. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a joke. If we have to explain it, it's not going to be funny. The caption simply repeats what's on the sign in the text - we didn't write the sign, presumably F-4 users did. - BillCJ (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, but I'll think about a reword that's suitable. --Red Sunset 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See if what I did a couple minutes ago is OK. Change as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems OK, even though the original one worked for me. --Red Sunset 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How about that one? --Red Sunset 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I know that MiGs are enemy aircraft, I see the joke - I had to search to check that MiGs are Russian aircraft, so can this be wikilinked to a suitable page? Which wars are you talking about? In the photo there is another poster slightly behind the quoted poster, perhaps that poster explains the details of the MiGs blown up or shot down, which is needed here too. Perhaps, the caption should include the phrase "enemy aircraft" somewhere and a MiG wikilink. Snowman (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are wikilinks to MiGs in the article, but I suppose one in the caption wouldn't hurt. No wars were mentioned. --Red Sunset 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Wl to MiGs now in caption, but shouldn't we be attending to the new cite tags rather than dissecting the joke? --Red Sunset 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep. Onto references. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
When fighter aircraft are shot down by other fighter aircraft and parts are "distributed" over the ground is is called a war. Do you mean that the F-4 Phantom II is a hypothetical "distributor" of aircraft parts? Snowman (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, almost. It is not really hypothetical as F-4s shot down many MiGs mainly during the Vietnam war. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

With the information now available I have amended the caption. However, it is not clear if the F-4 Phantom II in the photo a record holder of MiG downings or if it refers to F-4 Phantom IIs in general? Snowman (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowman, the "Phantom nicknames" section, which includes the image, expands on the caption. --Red Sunset 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
ok, but that section needs citations. Currently, the one citation in the paragraph only gives the names of five nicknames and the "parts distributor" is not one of them". Snowman (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That the F-4 was in several wars, and that it's primary opponents were MiGs, is not disputable. That this led some to call it World's largest distributor of MiG parts falls into the "common knowledge" aspect of sourcing. If we can find a source, great, but I honestly don't think it reguires one. However, a lengthy explanation to help "some" readers understand what the phrase means, whether in the text or the caption, would require adequate sourcing. This may be a case where it's best to just let the pic stand alone - it's a pic of an F-4 with a sign - that needs no sourcing, it just is. If people don't get it, they can ask here. - BillCJ (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What does the stand alone photo indicate? The sign says that the F-4F was (or is) the "World's largest distributor of MiG parts". It is not clear that the aircraft behind the sign in the photo is a record holder or that it refers to F-4Fs in general. It does not clearly include other variants of the F-4 Phantom II as being "distributors of MiG parts". There are several interpretations of what is shown on the sign. Encyclopedias should be clear, and editors should not routinely assume that readers can ask, if they do not get it. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Snow, it's just a photo. You're clearly overthinking this - many people can do that, even me, so I'm not saying that to be overcritical. Clarity applies primarily to the text in the article. We didn't write the sign, it's in the pic, and we can't change it to be more clear. I think we've discussed this enough to prove that if someone just doesn't get a point, no amount of dicussion is going to help. It doesn't mean anyone is stupid, or that a large amount of readers won't understand it. This is not Simple English Wikipedia - we don't have to make everything understandable at a first grade level. So please, let's just move on, and let things be. Or, you can propose that the pic be removed for being "unclear", and we can all abide by the consensus. - BillCJ (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-4 list article creep

We currently have (at least) three separate articles devoted to listing F-4 operators and units:

  1. F-4 Phantom II operators - this page is an excellent salvage of Stefano's terrible attempt to make an article, and probably the best of the lot now. It is a mix of prose and lists of all non-US operators.
  2. List of units using the F-4 Phantom - This article has decent lists of USAF, USMC, and RAF units, and some prose on operators of otehr nations. This is very incomplete, and most of the non-US operator info is already on the F-4 Phantom II operators page.
  3. List of U.S. Navy F-4 Phantom II units - this was spun off the previous list without no discussion at all, and apparently not much thought either. Good arrangement of info though, and the best section on any operator on the 3 pages.

I'd like to suggest that we move all non-US lists/test sections to F-4 Phantom II operators. We can then merge List of U.S. Navy F-4 Phantom II units back to List of units using the F-4 Phantom, and rename this page something like U.S. F-4 Phantom units. This would eliminate the current duplication across 2 of the pages, and keep the US units on one page. I've not checked to see how much duplication is present between the main F-4 page and F-4 Phantom II operators as yet, but considering the original contributor . . . - BillCJ (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • So combine 2 & 3. Seems fine to me. After that wouldn't the "F-4 Phantom II operators" article need to be renamed to include "non-U.S." or something in there as well? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to list that. How about F-4 Phantom non-U.S. operators? - BillCJ (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure, unless someone has a better idea. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • These suggestions seem good to me, but there was some discussion over what to call the F-4 Phantom II operators page, and at that time by consensus it was preferred not to use "non-U.S." in its title, but it might now make sense to rename it perhaps either F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators or F-4 Phantom II in non-U.S. service to distinguish it from the new merged #2&3 article, possibly named F-4 Phantom II in U.S. service. I'd also like to suggest that all relevant information in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force sections of "Operational history" could be incorporated into the "U.S. service" page leaving summarized sections on the main F-4 page; similarly, the "Phantom in non-U.S. air forces" section incorporated into the "non-U.S. service" page. These two new pages would become the "main articles" leaving a slimmer and tidier F-4 main page which has got to be a good thing! What d'ya think? --Red Sunset 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! I've got a non-Wiki project I'm busy with at the moment, so if someone else would like to do those changes, it's fine with me. (Note that I fully intended to do this myself when I proposed it, but circumstances beyond my control have intervened, and I've had to reprioritize my Wikipedia work for the time being. Just e-mail me if you want more explanation.) - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the "nuts & bolts" of "moving" a page; however, I'll wade in with anything else that I can. --Red Sunset 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Per discussions and FARC recommendations I'm making "operators" the main page and summarising the non-U.S. operators section country by country. Please dive in and change/correct where necessary. --Red Sunset 19:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that does need to be fixed with the operators article is the referencing. It may be worth keeping a copy of the operators section removed from the main article (which is referenced a little better) somewhere as a resource to help fill out the operators article (particularly because of the fuss about references in the main article.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The history of an article saves everything anyway. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My pruning could have been more severe, but I didn't want to go too far. Fortunately only a few cites were cut:-

Anyone who would like to take it further is welcome to do so. --Red Sunset 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, moved "F-4 Phantom II operators" to F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators. I plan to move and combine the other 2 articles into "F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators" this week. UPDATE: I moved "List of U.S. Navy F-4 Phantom II units" to F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators. I'm merging info from List of units using the F-4 Phantom to the U.S. operators article. The non-U.S. content in "List of units using the F-4 Phantom" appears to already be covered in "F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators". -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of excellent work done so far organising the pages and providing cites to reliable sources by Fnlayson and Nigel Ish. (I wonder just how many articles significantly cite Baugher and Goebel?!) --Red Sunset 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of air-to air kills

The number of air-to air kills scored by the Phantom appears to vary throughout the article.

In the overview we have 393 air-to-air victories (uncited)

  • In US Navy we have 40 in Vietnam (Grossnick?)
  • In US Air Force we have 107.5 in Vietnam (Vietnam War Almanac)

This gives 147.5 kills in US service in Vietnam

No figures are given for Iran -who has used them in air-to air combat

In the Israel section we have 116 (Baugher - and this is quoted on Baugher's isreal page - not the Index)

In the Phantom Culture section we have 277 US kills (unreferenced - although Boeing here refers to 280 MuG aircraft - but doesn't say who by) and 116 Israeli kills. (which adds up to 393 - as in the overview)

Very few of these figures seem to add wp - in particular there are 129.5 missing US air to air victories which appear to have been scored somewhere other than Vietnam.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I too drew a blank in finding a ref for the 277 figure. Unlikely I know, but it's possible that the Boeing site rounded the number up to 280 to promote the F-4's image a little more! Now, on to trawling for kill numbers that add up... --Red Sunset 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • According to the article: the 393 figure does not refer specifically to MiGs and so could mean aircraft of all types; while the USMC's 3 victories, USN 38 (USN's 40 includes 2 Ans), and USAF 107.5 (totalling 148.5) refers to MiGs only – presumably the remainder could have been other types; Sus, Tus, Ans, Mils etc. etc. (but that still doesn't reconcile the 277 MiGs figure in "Popular culture").
  • The Boeing site is a bit vague – the intro mentions 280 air-to-air victories (not MiGs specifically) in Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm, while "Gee Whiz!" says 280 MiGs but doesn't state where or who by. It's a bit of a coincidence that the same number quantifies two different circumstances – draw your own conclusions as to the accuracy or precision of either statement!
  • Baugher's 116 Israeli victories also doesn't mention MiGs.
  • The 277 MiGs may have been a misinterpretation of the original source (aircraft, kills, etc.).
It's a great pity that the editor who added the 393 and 277 figures didn't cite their refs. Still looking for reconciliation. --Red Sunset 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: It appears that the reason for the confusion is the use of the generic term "MiG" for enemy aircraft – from what I've found, 277 and 116 (393 total) are air-to-air victories including MiGs. Baugher doesn't mention MiGs in relation to these figures, so I've cited refs and adjusted the text. --Red Sunset 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Further update - (now Baugher isn't considered a WP:RS)
  • Vietnam:

The 107.5 USAF "MiG" kills and 40 USN kills seem to derive from reliable sources (giving 147.5) - ACIG [3] and [4] seems to state 159 total confirmed air-to air victories (including six J-6s (which other sources could count as MiGs) - all USAF and FOUR An-2s (all USN), together with a single Chinese aircraft [5].

  • Israel: Nordeen lists approx 128 air-to air kills by F-4s, ACIG seems to give [6], [7] and [8] a total of 88 kills.
  • Iran: ACIG [9] and [10] gives a total of 70 kills, of which 69 were in the Iran-Iraq war. Nigel Ish (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work Nigel; I trawled through these sites and became cross-eyed in the process! However, probably because I wasn't seeing straight, I came up with 159 confirmed MiGs and a total air-to-air victories of 169 in Vietnam (plus 1 MiG & 1 A20 from this). I did manage to come up with a total of 272 confirmed MiGs in Vietnam, Israel and Iraq combined plus a few unconfirmed and damaged which is getting close to the popular culture's 277 MiG kills. Nevertheless, it's all still as clear as mud and we have significantly different numbers coming from apparently reputable sources, so where do we go from here? I wonder if there are any two reliable sources that agree, and in any case the truth probably lies somewhere else, so maybe the best course of action is to decide which source seems (or is most likely) to provide the most accurate information – adjust the numbers in the article to match this cited source – then attach an explanatory footnote/s, possibly citing the alternatives within the footnote/s. Any other suggestions? --Red Sunset 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Thornborough book has an appendix listing all the South-east Asia kills with the aircraft number, crew names, mission callsign, date and weapon used plus the type of aircraft destroyed. USAF kills 109 (all MiGs), US Navy kills 40 (two shared, one with an F-105 and one with another F-4) aircraft destroyed where MiGs apart from two AN-2 biplanes. On page 202 Israel is given a total of 116 kills and on the same page is the statement 'the 280th and last reported MiG kill worldwide'. I can't quickly find any info on Iran numbers although it might be there. Hope this helps. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be tempted to reference Thorborough for the USAF, USN and Israeli victories, and possibly?? reference ACIG for Iranian victories (Tom Cooper, who is a major contributor to ACIG is probably the closest thing to a reliable source on Iranian combat claims - and has been published), but remove references to overall totals because of the general uncertaincy about some of the numbers and the differences between the critiera (for example Israel and Iran numbers are not official). Nigel Ish (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds sensible, but where individual numbers are referenced then couldn't overall totals including these be referenced also? --Red Sunset 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that other than the uS claims - we wouldn't be comparing like with like. The Iranian figures in particulr probably need to be taken with some caution.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Valid point, but since total claim numbers ought to be referenced, and as we can't reliably do so, are you advocating their removal from the article, or perhaps that they should be altered along with the associated text to give a more general meaning? --Red Sunset 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The total could either be removed or the number changed to say over 300? in the Overview. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would be tempted to remove the total completly - otherwise its just going to attracy questions and fact tags.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Return) OK, for simplicity we could replace the 393 with "numerous" in the Overview with ACIG cited, and remove the "as part of its 277 air-to-air victories in U.S. service and an additional 116 with Israel" text and cite Thornborough. That kills two Baughers and removes any contention at the same time. --Red Sunset 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Nimbus227 has sorted it – well done that man! --Red Sunset 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baugher

I've left this open at FAR because I know a great deal of edits had been made to improve it. Are there going to be any efforts soon to reduce the use of Baugher as much as possible? As discussed, his site does not meet the verifiability policy. Marskell (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have , where I can find reliable sources, added additional sources to verify use of Baugher - to deal with the remainder probably needs someone with the Principle Sources (i.e. the Jon Lake Phantom 'Spirit in the Sky' books) (which I don't have) to go through the residuals - hopefully this should allow most of the remainder to be verified or removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have left it open this long, so I can leave it open longer. Editors have put in mighty efforts and I think there's an active WikiProject looking at the aircraft articles. Nigel, I do appreciate that you personally have put in time. Let's see if Baugher can be reduced to an incidental reference, rather than a central one, by citing his own sources. Maybe you can ping a couple of people who likely have the sources. Marskell (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I can help here if you can give me some time, I have added references already. I don't have a problem with Joe Baugher, he goes to the trouble of quoting his own references and his information is generally accurate. Neither this or the article page were on my watchlist, will add them now. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Changed some Baugher links to Lake, not sure what the hurry is please remember it is not just replacing the refs we have to read and check that they say the same facts! MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As I always do, it is difficult to give a page number without reading the reference text first. In replacing the refs I have not found any inaccuracies in Baughers information so far. The multiple references are much harder to replace. You are implying that I am not being thorough. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think MilborneOne's was replying to Marskell about this is not a quick task to replace all of those. Good work folks. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Apology Nimbus it was not a reply to your statement you are doing some good work but rather trying to explain to Marskell that it is not a quick job. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, everyone is doing a great job although you already know my reservations regarding this "review" and that is why I chose not to participate. Keep your heads above the crocs! Bzuk (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
(Edit conflict)Accepted MilB. I did feel it was aimed directly at me though as I appear to be the only editor currently adding alternative references. It will take a long time. I am also trying to illustrate the point that Baugher's references are good and verifiable as they match those given in the very comprehensive 300 page 'Phantom Story' book that I am using. A paradox is that the F-104 Starfighter article failed its GA nomination partly on the opinion of the reviewer that he would rather see web references using the argument that if he did not have access to the book then it was not verifiable, I am struggling with this state of affairs, this also questions the integrity of the editor who placed the reference. I know where you are coming from Bill. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed as many as Baughers refs as I can using Lakes Spirit in the Skies cant find any more direct equivalent texts. Interesting comments about the review we just have to do our best while the playing field moves about from underneath us! MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To be clear

I'll start a new section header for this, because I know there's people here concerned over the review process.

First, there is no excplicit deadline. There is no "do this, or else" at the current WP:FAR. Quite the opposite: if there's some response to input, it will be kept open. The fact that this has been open since 17 November should tell you there's no rush. I poked this talk page because it had been three months since it started.

Baugher. OK, I am sure he's absolutely diligent, having looked. Just as you or I would be diligent in trying to create a comprehensive hobby site. Perhaps there have been zero transmission errors between his books and his site. But it does not meet WP:V, because the man is not published in this field (AFAICS).

None of this tussle is bad, really. I think there's a great WikiProject at work here and, while it may seem cold comfort, I think this review can be of great benefit to it. Next time you want to go to FAC, you can look back at this and say "let's do it that way." Go to the main sources and reduce the uncertain net sources. While at it on this article, try to reduce the ToC to a reasonable size—it's still somewhat overwhelming.

This will be kept, I'm sure. There is no deadline, just an understanding of whether people are working on it. Marskell (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire claim of Baugher and Goebel of not being verifiable is fallacious. Verifiable sites are merely defined as: "relying on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Publishing on a webpage is entirely consistent with the definition of publishing and is underscored by numerous web-based publishing enterprises that are part of the contemporary publishing industry. There are countless E-publishing sites that form a legitimate part of the publishing world. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
We've gone through this. From V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Baugher has not been published in the relevant field. Marskell (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Then my use of Baugher's research in multiple instances in periodical and book form for Altitude Publishing among others, then qualifies. Bzuk (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
If Altitude Publishing is a reputable aviation publisher, then yes, it could be used. I would be a little hesitant over a publisher that is itself recycling material from personal webpages, however. Marskell (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Folks, Joe Baugher goes to all lengths to be accurate in his work. I have verified his data at times with books in my library (same ones in his bibliography). I have also dealt with him personally in emails siting references and photographs to update his articles and a/c status in the s/n search engine. If anyone finds errors, typos, changes, etc in any of his articles, please, please, contact him with your changes and references. He'll update those changes in many times with in a few days, couple of weeks on the outside. He is dedicated to accuracy and a pleasure to work with. Respectfully submitted, LanceBarber (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hear Hear! I'm sure Joe will be gratified to know that his work is appreciated by many (if not all). --Red Sunset 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survivors section

Virtually all of the recent edits have been in this section, placed by well meaning editors that probably do not realise that this is an FA, which is causing us some work with adding references (or deleting). There must be many of the venerable 'Toom' preserved in one place or the other, all as notable as each other perhaps and the list (as it is becoming) needs to be 'moderated'. I notice that the section has become accidentally USA biased, perhaps a good way to balance this is to have a mix of survivors from all the operator countries? There is a Phantom on the gate at RAF Leuchars (placed by an editor recently and deleted) but I could not find a good reference for it in time sadly. Can I suggest a 'nowiki' note at the bottom of this section advising that all additions need to be fully referenced or something to this effect? Nimbus227 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"accidentally USA biased"?? You mean it's biased if the nation that designed the Phantom, and produced and operated it in more numbers than any other nation, preserved more of those airframes, and has more sources attesting to the fact that they are preserved? Would I expect the survivors section on the Supermarine Spitfire to have more coverage of British surviving airframes and locations? Of course I would! Does that constitute bias? Of course not, only info on America is capable of being biased!! ;) If an editor reads about or knows of a Phantom being used as a gate guard on a USAF, USN, or USMC base, or in a museum in the US, and can cite it, what is wrong with that? Is he/she supposed to search for a Phantom in Britain, Germany, or Turkey to add too? Is it the editor's fault people in those countries aren't documenting their own surviving airframes? Evidently it is if you are an American editor! If the only properly-documented survivors are in America, are we to add improperly-documented ones from other nations to balance it out? What if we added every surviving Phantom airframe outside of the US, porperly documented, but it was still just a fraction of those in the US? Which of the properly documented US airframes should we remove to make the section less "biased"? Please realize what your comments sound like to Americans, and recognize that "bias" accusations can be made by anyone against any nation, and are usually not very constructive, especially in the context of a list! There are others ways to phrase what you mean without the negative connotations of bias - even if you didn't mean it in a negative sense, and I assume you didn't, it can still be taken that way. Remember that WP is a work in progress - it's fine to point out where more work is needed, but don't "accidentally" insult other editors when you do so. - BillCJ (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Steady on Bill, I think you know me better than that by now. 'Accidentally biased' is perhaps an unfortunate term I used (but I have had a very long day at work) and I did not use the single word 'biased' (I should state categorically that I am not anti-US or even racist, which is strange for an Englishman, I grant you). I am concerned that the survivor section might get out of control. I thought that a good way round it would be to provide a balanced list from around the world (which of course would include a higher number of US aircraft). If you have a look at the survivors (only three?) in the F-104 Starfighter article they are from Germany, Denmark and Norway (no US or Canadian survivors). Someone has labelled that section 'Outside US', is that biased?. I agree that it is down to editors to make the effort to add or keep them (hence my futile attempt at keeping the RAF Leuchars entry that someone else added). It is also interesting that the photograph in this article of the German F-4 remains when its text line was deleted. To me if there is a photograph of the specific aircraft next to the text then that is good enough reference, but perhaps not for an FA? I notice that some articles are resorting to Google Earth references and co-ordinates to prove that these aircraft are really there, this is plain silly . I keep vague guidelines of WP:FANCRUFT in my head when editing articles, surely a way to avoid this is balance? I have helped you with photographs for two articles and you have taken my comments totally the wrong way and given me a blasting for no reason. Sorry I spoke now. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as the gate guardian entries that have been added without references, just fact tag them. Don't feel like you have to find a reference for them. If you feel like it and can find one, great. Just don't feel like to. Back to the broadsides and other naval action if you want. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe they were 'tagged' but removed very quickly afterwards (might be wrong because I always am). A harmless 'constructive' comment has got me wondering why I spend time on this project. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Nimbus, sorry for the broadside! I've had a few rough weeks healthwise, and I'm sorry I'm not up to my normal self. I never even thought of you as being "racist", that never entered my mind (and usually doesn't about anyone without good cause). I'm just on a hair-trigger right now, and "US bias" is one of the trigger-issues. I did say that I assumed you didn't mean it in a negative sense. I should have made my comments more focused on the third person, and not on you, and for that I do apologize. I honestly have no malice for you, and I do appreciate the help you gave me. I stand behind the core meaning of what I said, and I do see that you understood and agree with my basic point. We don't have to agree on everything to get along, and I will try to avoid any more broad shots in your direction, as they are unwarranted no matter my points. - BillCJ (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a good broadside though Bill! We are all aircraft fans and it does not do to get bogged down in racism etc. Just have a look at the Jewish/Islam stuff on here (no, don't!) I have enough grief in my life (disabled son) and I come here primarily to add content and relax. I had a health scare recently which made me think about things, as my older daughters would say 'chill out, dad'. I don't understand this language but I think it means 'stay calm'! All the best. Nimbus227 (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Designations

Most all the F-4 designations are mentioned in the text. Reference 1 (a footnote) mentions AH, F4H and McDonnell Model 98. But Model 98 is not mentioned in the text. Not sure at what stage in the early development that number applied though. Any help/info on this is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look in my books but could not find a reference to the model number, I found this from Joe Baugher, looks like it was the whole project model number, perhaps before anything was built. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
More here. It does not seem to be mentioned in Angelucci-The American Fighter which is one of the sources he cites. Nimbus (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool. I didn't expect that info to be on the internet. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims and Scores

Very precise wording is required with air to air combat scores and claims. Typically air crew claim larger numbers of kills than the actual number. Air forces try to verify producing a smaller number - though this is not necessarily the correct one.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure precise wording is required, I would just presume the wording reflects the reference used. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 107½ MiG kills

How exactly did they score half a kill? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Probably an F-4 and another aircraft contributed significantly and roughly equally to the kill. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened ??

What the heck has gone on here ? Because we left this article in beautiful shape after its February 2008 FAR, I was really excited to see it scheduled for the mainpage, but on closer examination, it's been extensively altered since its FAR, and is once again loaded up with unformatted citations, non-reliable sources, listiness, dash problems, and more !!! Most of the new problems seem to be in the "Survivors" section, which is not in shape to be on the mainpage. I'm considering cutting all of that to a daughter article so this won't be a mainpage embarrassment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done; that was a lot of poorly cited, listy cruft. A better summary should be written for this section before mainpage day. There are still some cleanup needs, and some unformatted citations; can't a featured article be maintained to standard without letting this kind of cruft creep in ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean crufty list? I changed the title to reflect the same terminology in use for the section title. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC).

Here's the diff since FAR; that's an awful lot of change in only 3 months for an article that should be stable. I hope the regular editors will check over that diff and make sure everything is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caption question

What does this caption mean: "The Blue Angels fly their F-4Js abreast, for cross-country events."? Do they fly them that way when they are in a cross-country event? Do they fly abreast whenever they are going cross-country to an event? What the hell does it mean? I want to get that superfluous comma out of there, but I want it to say something that makes sense after I do. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "The Blue Angels flew F-4Js from 1969 to 1974" - that old caption also used "fly" in an ambiguous way that would probably be interpreted as saying "currently fly". Tempshill (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Numerous"?

"Israeli Phantoms saw extensive combat in numerous Arab–Israeli conflicts"

A quibble on use of the word "numerous" in this sentence --
"Numerous" is "a large number of" or "many".

The F-4 was in service in Israel during the period 1969-2004. Depending on how we define "Arab–Israeli conflict", the number of Arab-Israeli "periods of hostilities" during this time was apparently on the order of 3-5 (per our article) -- not what I would call "numerous".

It seems to me that we might want to make a change along the lines of either replacing "numerous" with "several", or replacing "conflicts" with "incidents".

As I say, a quibble. Comments? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a quibble. I noticed that, too, and I would have changed it but I didn't feel like it. I say you should just go ahead and change things like that without discussion from now on. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History section needs work!

The history section is completely baffling. It repeats the naming and basic history three times in the space of one on-screen page. In one section it is implied the original design was a ground-attack fighter, but armed with the Sparrow III and no guns (that's not a typical ground-attack layout, to say the least). The very next section talks about it being a modular design with multiple roles, including cannon armament. Is one of these statements incorrect? Even if they are both accurate, it's extremely confusing. Maury (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article really complete without some mention of pardo's push?

One of the most noteworthy feats of in the latter half of the 20th century, and it was performed in Phantoms. http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1296/pardo.htm -24.82.140.138 (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Scan0016kom.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Scan0016kom.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nigel Ish (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)