Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/B-29 Superfortress/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] B-29 Superfortress

I have not worked on this, aside from a few minor fixes, but it stood out as an exceptional entry, and I would like to nominate it as a featured article. It was previously nominated about two years ago. It has been substantially rewritten since then. While it does not heavily use inline citations, it is well-referenced and appears to have been very extensively researched. —ptk✰fgs 02:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Object; a number of issues here:
    • Inline citations—in fairly large numbers—are a sine qua non for FAs now. Only three in an article of this size and complexity is simply an unacceptably low level of referencing.
    • The lead is rather short; perhaps another paragraph would be worthwhile?
    • There's a lot of choppy prose (one-sentence paragraphs, stubby sections) throughout the article. The "Operators" section is particularly problematic in this regard. The "Noteworthy survivors" section is just a list, not really prose at all.
    • Can the spacing of the various elements in the "Related content" section be cleaned up somehow?
Significant work is still needed here, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - This article needs copy-edit, and needs to be wikified. It also lacks details on many sections, and doesn't state why the plane is notable. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. While this entry is currently of reasonable quality, it's certainly not of FA standard. In addition to the points raised above, I'd also note that the article would benefit from a section discussing the impact of the aircraft on WW2 (the fact that several campaigns were fought purely to secure B-29 bases for example). The article probably also needs more photos to improve its appearance. I'd suggest that this article be nominated for a collaboration by WikiProject Aircraft and/or the Military aviation task force --Nick Dowling 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree. Needs far more references. --Kitch 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)