Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/F-84 Thunderjet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] F-84 Thunderjet
A comprehensive overview of the straight- and swept-wing F-84s. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
OpposeAlso lacking in citations, although again, appears to be a well written treatment of the topic. Carom 19:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)- Support after fixes by Emt147. Carom 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Another great article, but needing through citations to be A-class. There could also be a bit more elaboration on the dam attack and air-to-air combats that are briefly mentioned. Buckshot06 20:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have expanded the references, please re-evaluate. There is not much more to say about air combat since the F-84 saw very little action against enemy fighters. The dam attack is described in great detail in the Wikilinked article.- Emt147 Burninate! 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good step in the right direction. However, for both the F-84 and F-105 articles you might want to take a look at the referencing in previously approved A-class articles, maybe for example The King's Regiment (Liverpool). These have usually over thirty citations right through the article. The only thing you have to do to get these promoted is to go and reference many things that may seem obvious to you (and me, for that matter). But that's the way the wiki-conventions have it. You've made a good start, and the dam attack article you linked has a number you could copy straightaway.
- Cheers Buckshot06 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have expanded the references, please re-evaluate. There is not much more to say about air combat since the F-84 saw very little action against enemy fighters. The dam attack is described in great detail in the Wikilinked article.- Emt147 Burninate! 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
WeakSupport You have done a good job citing the material; while I would like to see more inline citations, I feel there are enough present to warrent an A-class status. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- With all due respect, I'm not playing the "minimum number of citations" game. Every significant statement or claim has been cited. Please show specifically what you feel needs a citation. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a number of "fact" tags to indicate where I feel further citations are necessary. You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I think the tags represent locations where citations would be appropriate. Carom 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Concur with Carom on his placement of {{fact}} tags. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I have addressed the fact tags. Thank you for taking the time to place them, it's far more useful than simply saying "more citations needed" since I did most of the writing and a lot of the facts seem obvious and not in need of citation to me. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Concur with Carom on his placement of {{fact}} tags. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a number of "fact" tags to indicate where I feel further citations are necessary. You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I think the tags represent locations where citations would be appropriate. Carom 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I'm not playing the "minimum number of citations" game. Every significant statement or claim has been cited. Please show specifically what you feel needs a citation. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Bukvoed 10:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support; other users have obviously expressed their citation concerns. Once those citations are taken care of, I see no problem with this... surely one of the more thorough treatments I've seen. Thanks! LordAmeth 21:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback everybody! - Emt147 Burninate! 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
