Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress/GA1

GA Review
for seven days for remaining issues to be addressed. Airplaneman  ✈  04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:B52LAFB.JPG and File:B-52D dropping bombs.jpg need tweaking. Also, it is not necessary, but try for SVG on File:Operation Chrome Dome route.jpg.
 * 1) Overall: Everything looks in order. I'm happy to pass this page as a good article! Congratulations :) Airplaneman   ✈  00:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:B52LAFB.JPG and File:B-52D dropping bombs.jpg need tweaking. Also, it is not necessary, but try for SVG on File:Operation Chrome Dome route.jpg.
 * 1) Overall: Everything looks in order. I'm happy to pass this page as a good article! Congratulations :) Airplaneman   ✈  00:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:

In-depth review
I'll take this section by section. Feel free to strike comments that have been dealt with. To reduce clutter, all my comments will be unsigned (so don't forget to sign your posts! ).


 * Lead and infobox
 * Paragraphs two and three are similar in scope and could be combined, as they are both relatively short. (suggestion, not mandatory)
 * Third paragraph, last sentence: personnel involved with the aircraft most commonly referred to it as BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker). Does this mean that personell no longer call it that?
 * Addressed. Kyteto (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The nickname of BUFF is only mentioned in the lead. Ideally, it should be in the main article as well. The same goes for "Others in this class are the English Electric Canberra, the Tupolev Tu-95, the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, and the Lockheed U-2." which is only mentioned in the lead. Additionally, what does "this class" refer to?
 * That 'class' statement refers to aircraft that have been in service with their primary operator for 50 or more years. I'm not sure where to echo it to, in the other memebers of the class it usually only gets a mention in the lead as well. I'll see one use of BUFF under the Gulf War section as well, I'll look for more. Kyteto (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - thanks for clarifying. It'll be fine if you use BUFF in the main article and leave the "others in this class" just in the lead.
 * Additionally, I must have misread when using Ctrl+F to look for "BUFF". The current mentions are fine.


 * Origins
 * I've made some fixes.
 * There is a citation needed tag lingering in the last paragraph.


 * Pre-production
 * Made some fixes.
 * Third paragraph: please define and/or blue link "reconnaissance pods"
 * Fourth paragraph: "Encouraged, the Air Force increased its order to 282 B-52s" - from an order of how many? (suggestion, not mandatory; it'd be nice to know)
 * Statement in the paragraph above states it to have been only 13, I don't know of any step in between. Guess the Air Force was swinging from one extreme to the other. :D Kyteto (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK; fine as it is.


 * Upgrades and modifications
 * Made some fixes.
 * Last paragraph: "In 2007 the LITENING targeting pod was fitted" - was it to all or just some of the planes?
 * I imagine all, it doesn't pause to discriminate. It appears to have been a popular upgrade on many of the USAF's aircraft, so it certainly isn't as if there's a shortage of components to be shared around. For training consistancy, and capability, I would strongly lean towards all, but have nothing solid beyond logic and the lack of seperation to say that upon. Kyteto (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - if you could specify, that would be great, but it's not a deal-breaker when it comes to GA status.


 * Fuel research platform
 * Paragraphs combined. Looks good otherwise.


 * Costs
 * Table looks good.


 * Introduction
 * Fixes made, mainly pertaining to WP:DASH.
 * Second paragraph: "Early operations were complicated by lack of spares" - spare what? Tires, aircraft, crew?
 * Fourth paragraph: "On 26 September 1958, a B-52D set a world speed record of 560.705 miles per hour" - certainly not the fastest ever. What record did it set, specifically (was it a world speed record for subsonic jets, perhaps?)
 * Looks to me like Speed-by-Distance record, in that era slower speeds meant a longer distance, so the distance wasn't exceptional on its own, but the combination of the two may have been outstanding. I'll try to look into it later on. Kyteto (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fourth paragraph: "On 14 December 1960, a B-52G set a world record by flying unrefuelled" - was this a distance record? "From 10 to 11 January 1962, a B-52H set a world record by flying unrefuelled" hints that the record I mentioned in the last sentence was broken; if this is true, then it would be nice to add "From 10 to 11 January 1962, a B-52H set a world record by flying unrefuelled… surpassing the previous record" or something to that effect.
 * The two records might not necessarily be the same record, there are many different sub-catagories that could possibly be seperating them, until we're sure that they are in the exact same terms, it would be difficult to say with a good dosage of reliability that the second record surpassed the earlier. We would need to be certain with this. To be honest, these sentences are a real bug for me. Kyteto (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was confused when I read them, too (hence my noting of them here). The concerns in this section are really the only things left to address in this review.
 * All checked over, they are in line with the source's information, minor alterations made and more direct referencing inserted in places. Kyteto (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the changes; much better!


 * Vietnam War
 * Please check my rephrasing of parts of the section to make sure I didn't change the meaning of anything.
 * 5th paragraph reference has a hidden comment as follows: "" . Please address.
 * Does the quote at the end not need a period at the end of it?


 * Air-to-air victories
 * "Moore was the last bomber gunner to shoot down an enemy aircraft with machine gunsin aerial combat." - is this of all time or just of the Vietnam War?
 * All time. There was a discussion above about it, there hasn't been one since, at least not any that have been reported, and there's very few aircraft that have turrets to do so with now, so it'll likely stick. Kyteto (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK; added.


 * Cold War
 * Everything looks good. If you're aiming for FAC, I would suggest fleshing out the paragraphs a bit, as most of them in this section are rather short (around 2 sentences). It's no big deal here, and as each one addresses a different topic, I'm hesitant to combine any of them.


 * Gulf War and later
 * My edits.
 * Please address citation needed tags added by me.
 * Right after the first quote: "Various Russian sources" - a bit vague; specific names of sources would be better. Maybe ""Various Russian sources, such as X and Y, rest of the sentence here"
 * "On the night of 21 March 2003, B-52Hs launched at least one hundred AGM-86C CALCMs" - where?
 * The number of airworthy B-52s is stated at 94 in the section. The infobox's numbers only total 90.


 * Future of the B-52
 * My edits
 * "This version would have modified and augmented 16 B-52H airframes with additional electronic jamming capabilities." Please link and or define "jamming".


 * Variants
 * My edits
 * Header "B-52B/RB-52B" - "This version included minor changes to engines and avionics, enabling 12,000 pounds of thrust to be produced using water injection." Was this 12,000 extra pounds of thrust?
 * Header "B-52D" - "The Big Belly modifications allowed the B-52D to carry heavy loads of conventional bombs for carpet bombing over Vietnam, while the Rivet Rambler modification added the Phase V ECM systems" - please define/link.


 * Operators
 * Looks good.


 * Notable accidents
 * Space added. Otherwise, looks good.


 * Survivors
 * This section is wholly unreferenced. Try adding some more detail, as it is one sentence long (such as which countries host them, etc.)
 * I think it'd be more appropriate to leave it as it is. It's been spun off into a dedicated subarticle, which vouches for the one statement that is already there, and it was probably done due to the large size of this article as it currently stands. IF you feel that a bigger discription is needed, I'll work on it, but giving it a look over I doubt there's much that comes to mind as mentionable, they're likely only going to be distributed around the US, or to highly trusted allied nations in small numbers, as they're aircraft capable of being a nuclear weapons delivery platform, if the US policy is anything like the British one regarding our own retired bombers, it'll be extremely restricted or possibly impossible to export (I imagine individual peices or partial hulls could be displayed though). Kyteto (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm… article size is a valid argument. Thanks for explaining; I've been persuaded :).


 * Specifications (B-52H)
 * Made a tweak.
 * Since reference number six is cited at the beginning of the section, why does it need to be inserted intermittently throughout?


 * Notable appearances in media
 * This section is wholly unreferenced.


 * Miscellany
 * I have listed two files that need fixes above, as well as one file that could use a better format.
 * Please zap the problematic links revealed at Checklinks. I've automatically fixed one and tagged the other dead links.
 * Dead links now either removed as unnecessary or replaced with working alternatives. Kyteto (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC


 * I see dash problems (see WP:DASH) throughout the article. I will fix as I go through and copyedit. It is hard to explain, but here is an example: "This resulted in Boeing developing yet another revision–in July 1948" should be " This resulted in Boeing developing yet another revision – in July 1948". It is correct, however, to not have spaces in dates, for example 1949–1950. The link explains the matter in more detail than I can (I'm sure it makes more sense, too ).
 * Just an observation: since this is a US plane, I would think that US date formats would be used. I'm not sure if that is a problem in FAC or not, though. I'm fine with it here, as long as usage is consistent.
 * Actually, the date format used by the US Military is what is currently in the article. See STRONGNAT -MBK004 02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case, keep it! I was not aware that this was the date format the US Military uses.