Template:Did you know nominations/Action of 27 June 1950

Action of 27 June 1950
Created by Ed! (talk). Self nom at 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that despite being outnumbered 2 to 1, US F-80 Shooting Stars won their first engagement of the Korean War, shooting down four North Korean aircraft?
 * Symbol question.svg Article length, creation date, hook length check out.  But the article has some problems.  There are a fair number of misspellings, typos, run-on sentences, and the like.  It suffers from redundancy: a short article does not need to make the same points (jet fighters were superior) three times.  One claim is highly dubious – "These victories were the first for jet-powered fighters in history" – what about the Me 262!?  And while the triumph over the La-7s may have legitimately shown the superiority of a jet fighter over a propeller-driven fighter, the Il-10s were ground attack aircraft that presumably were easily bested by WW II propeller-driven fighters as well. And the tone of the article suggests that it was some kind of revelation that jet fighters would be superior; this was again known as soon as the Me 262 showed up.  And the first engagement was five F-82s against five La-7s, which doesn't support either the jet theme or the hook's 2-to-1.  The second engagement does, but again, 4 jet fighters besting 8 propeller ground attack planes doesn't come as a big surprise.  If they had beaten 8 MiG-15s, then that would be a hook ... but I think this one needs something else.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've relooked at the article based on sources. The claim that these were the first Jet victories was incorrect, they were the first victories for a US Air Force jet fighter in history, and the first time a USAF jet fighter was flown in combat. I've also toned down the idea that jet aircraft were superior. It's now only referenced in the lead and the aftermath. — Ed! (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have concerns about this article and am going to spend a little more time looking it over, especially given that it received a very premature and cursory GA review. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead section itself suffers from many problems. The article has been renamed to "Battle of Suwon Airfield" but the first sentence instead talks about Kimpo Airfield and Suwon.  The first sentence should also state that the action was over South Korea.  What does the phrase "successfully shot down" mean?  Is there a way to unsuccessfully shoot down an aircraft?  And who was being evacuated from Seoul – the lead says "US civilians and diplomats" and the next sentence says just "civilians" while later in the article it states "civilians and American diplomats" (implying not just American civilians).  Were any civilians or diplomats from other UN countries evacuated?  The sentence "Despite being outnumbered, the better-built American aircraft outmaneuvered the North Koreans, quickly shooting down half of the attacking force" sort of conflates the two engagements.  In the first engagement they weren't outnumbered.  And what does "better-built" mean?  Factory construction methods constituted the edge?  One case was a mismatch (jet fighter vs prop ground attack plane).  In the other case, maybe pilot training had as much to do with the outcome as superior maneuverability?  The pilot quality factor seems to be ignored by the whole article.  And I still think the sentence "The battle also signaled a turning point in the Jet age, as new, jet engine powered fighter aircraft had easily bested conventional fighters." is unwarranted, as the Il-10 is not a conventional fighter. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol_delete_vote.svg Still has unaddressed issues after 8 days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)