Talk:1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

Featured article review needed
This is a 2009 Featured article that has not been maintained to WP:WIAFA standards. It appears that no one is watching this article. If the article cannot be brought to standard, it should be submitted to WP:FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is some uncited text.
 * There are numerous Harvref errors.
 * There is a complete layout mess caused by too many images, including considerable MOS:SANDWICH.
 * Since noticed this article in 2020, there has been limited engagment and the concerns outlined above still remain. Is anyone interested in working on this article? Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I fixed the MOS:SANDWICH issue. Can't see any obvious harvref errors.  Stepho  talk 23:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js will help. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I installed it and now I see 10 instances of "There is no link pointing to this citation". They don't show up for normal users and don't cause any other trouble, so I'm willing to treat them as benign.  Stepho  talk 03:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In Further reading, they are fixed by adding a |ref=none parameter to the citation template, as they aren't intended to be used as refs. (Or by moving Further reading out of the references section, which I have now done.) In the Bibliography section, however, they are not benign; they indicate sources that are not used but are listed as having been used.  Why? Were they used in the promoted version, and then text got deleted?  Were they never used?  If never used, why not?  Is the article comprehensive with so many unused sources.  Are the sources useful?  Should they be listed in Further reading?  Resolution of these questions goes to the core of whether the article is a comprehensive FA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  10:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And this article (added to Further reading after the FA was promoted) suggests some missing content. Another indication a better look at the sourcing is needed, as well as a comprehensive search for newer scholarly sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  10:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * are you interested in addressing Sandy's concerns above? Can some sources that were not used as inline citations be incorporated into the article? Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it but I can't really find the enthusiasm for it at the moment.  Stepho  talk 11:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)