Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/C-5 Galaxy

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] C-5 Galaxy

A good article on the one of the largest US military transport plane. It would be nice for WPMILHIST to have some more A/FA class aircraft articles. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The first paragraph in "Development" states that the U.S. Army directed the development of the C-5. Was it really them and not the U.S. Air Force? Cla68 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Army provided the main requirements (cargo). The wording probably gives the Army too much prominence. I wrote the first 2-3 paragraphs of the Deve section with the best info I had at the time & referenced it. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the lead is far too short, large parts of the article (especially in the middle of Development, the first paragraph of Operational history, etc.) are totally unreferenced, the article is far too reliant on lists (bulleted or non-bulleted) rather than prose, the references aren't consistently formatted, and the article doesn't flow (possibly as a result of having far too much information presented in list form compared to prose). I don't this article is ready yet. Daniel 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Design section is the main list thing and really shouldn't be. The Incidents and accidents section is done in list form for most of the Aviation project. No changing that part. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, article needs to be referenced better to make it a solid B-class. It really needs more history info after the early years. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose under much the same reasoning as Daniel. The development section is far too listy. The single sentence paragraphs are unneccessary, try merging them, and then referencing them. The quotes and figures should be refenced. The features section could be turned into prose. It doesn't seem A-Class yet. Woodym555 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Daniel. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.