Talk:The Bridges at Toko-Ri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article needs an infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Edits needed to this page 2 Rank of Rear Admiral 3 Nitpicks re: edit list 4 Fair use rationale for Image:The Bridges of Toko-Ri.jpg

[edit] Edits needed to this page

I have my hands full with several aviation and military history articles, so I won't make these edits myself. However, I feel that the "Features" section of this article needs some work. Suggest a few changes:

• Needs NPOV. Statements such as "an extremely realistic war movie", "the scenes... are well shot and the action is superb", and "the cast is successful" sound like fawning admiration, not neutral analysis as would be expected of an encyclopedia.

• The history of USS Oriskany is awkwardly written and interrupts continuity. It seems like unnecessary clutter in an article that is about a movie, not a ship. If readers would like more information about Oriskany, they can look it up seperately with a link to the Wikipedia article about the ship.

• In reference literature, it is common practice to omit the word "the" preceding the name of a ship.

• The F2H Banshee is a fighter, not a bomber. In Korean War era Navy practice, a bomber would carry the "A" prefix, i.e. AD Skyraider or AJ Savage. Yes, but.... Fighters are often used for tactical bombimg missions, the F-4 Phantom being the most obvious. F-4U Corsair were often used, and in actuality the Navy fighters were most often used as bombers, not air supeiority fighters, Ditto, Air Force F105, F111, they even used F104s as bombers in Nam. Often the A or F designation was about funding. In "The Lonly Sky" Bill Bridgeman talks about out dog fighting a Mustang ( P51) in a Skyraider(AD-1)

• It seems unnecessary to mention that the Banshee is a predecessor of the F-4 Phantom II. Again, the article is about a movie. The Phantom was not a direct decendant of the Banshee. They were both made by McDonnell, and were twin engine jets, but no direct connection.

• The section implies that there was a "real attack". The story is based on actual raids during the war, but the events shown in the movie are entirely fictitious. There is no real place called "Toko-Ri" and therefore no "real attack". See Article in Naval Aviation, found in search engine: Supposedly Michemer's notes were found about an attack on a rail road bridge in a heavily defended valley on the Kowon-Yangdok-Samdong-ni rail line. This article claims Ads and F4Us, all prop planes were used. But Hollywood and the Navy proablly wanted to capitalize on the sexy Jetpilot image. It used to mean something! Note this is source material, not the "Real Battle"

• The section incorrectly implies that actual Korean War footage was used ("aircraft used on the same missions in the Korean War of real footage"). The Panther flight sequences were filmed for the movie. They are not stock footage. This sentence is awkwardly written and a rewrite could clear this up.

This is the tip of the iceberg. There are so many unwarranted and questionable assumptions and interpreted conclusions that the entire article is virtually OR. --Reedmalloy (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rank of Rear Admiral

In the US Navy, the rank of Rear Admiral is abbreviated RADM and RDML, depending on whether the officer is in the upper half or the lower half of the promotion list. However, this is relatively modern. At the time of the Korean War, RADM was the abbreviation for all rear admirals. I don't think, though, that it should be used in the list of characters, unless all the ranks are changed to the correct abbreviations for the period.

--Tex 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nitpicks re: edit list

A few counter-arguments regarding the comments added to my earlier proposed edit list...

• A Banshee is a small, light, fast, short-range, single-seat airplane designed for aerial combat, and is therefore a fighter. The word "bomber" used by itself implies a large, heavy, relatively slow, long-range airplane with a crew of at least 4 or 5, e.g. a B-17 or B-52. I am well aware that there are many ongoing arguments about the definition of each word and whether certain airplanes are properly categorized as a fighter or a light bomber (the F-105 and F-111 come to mind). However, as this article is about a movie, not an airplane, I feel that it is confusing to the general public (most of whom do not care about such esoteric arguments) to describe the Banshee as a bomber when its designation says it's a fighter. I suggest describing it as a fighter-bomber and leaving it at that.

• The article uses the word "predecessor", not "descendent". "Descendant" implies a direct design connection, "predecessor" does not- it just says that one thing came before another from the same source. However, this issue is a red herring that sidesteps the point of my earlier comment... in my humble opinion, the reference to the Phantom II is unnecessary clutter in an article about a film, as is the trivia about USS Oriskany.

• Regarding "real attack"... yes, I'm aware that James Michener based his novel on actual events, I just think that the wording in the article is misleading. The story is a highly fictionalized composite at best. The repeated use of the phrase "real attack" implies that there was a real bridge that was really destroyed by the US Navy at a real place called Toko-Ri, which is not true on any level.

• It was James Michener, not the Navy, who changed the airplanes from prop-powered AD Skyraiders to jet-powered F2H Banshees to capitalize on the "Sexy Jet Pilot" image.

• I've been told that the airplanes were changed from F2H Banshees to F9F Panthers simply because all of the Banshees available to the filmmakers had already been repainted in the Navy's then-new light grey and white paint scheme. Supposedly, the filmmakers felt that they would not show up on the screen well enough to emphasize the action, so they opted to use Panthers that were still wearing the Navy's older solid navy blue paint scheme (which is ironic, because the whole purpose of the new paint scheme was to make the planes less visible in the air). However, this is only hearsay, so this should not be included in the article unless someone can find a verifiable source.

That's all from me for now. Carguychris 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Commander Lee was not the Squadron commander but the "CAG" (Commander of the Air Group), the next-higher level of command. lpadilla@voicenet.com 209.158.189.54 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Bridges of Toko-Ri.jpg

Image:The Bridges of Toko-Ri.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)