Template:Did you know nominations/Loring Air Force Base, alert crew, mole hole, christmas tree (aviation), Loring Air Force Base Alert Area, elephant walk (aviation), Minimum Interval Takeoff

Loring Air Force Base, Alert crew, Mole hole, Christmas tree (aviation), Loring Air Force Base Alert Area, Elephant walk (aviation), Minimum Interval Takeoff

 * ... that Loring AFB alert crews would scramble from a mole hole, run to awaiting jets on a christmas tree (both within the alert area), perform an elephant walk and a MITO (pictured), all within 15 minutes?
 * Reviewed: Nuclear Strike
 * Comment: I have added Loring Air Force Base as I plan on expanding it more once I get the chance in the immediate future. I still have a lot of material to add, but I wanted to get the other articles up there just in case the five days expired before I could finish it. Since there is a huge backlog, I was advised to do this on the talk page.

Created/expanded by Ktr101 (talk). Self nom at 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Loring Air Force Base Alert Area article is proposed for merger with Loring Air Force Base
 * Maile66 (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Merge proposal closed. This will remain a stand-alone article. Maile66 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Loring Air Force Base article is proposed for merge with multiple other articles.
 * Maile66 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other articles are proposed to be merged into it, not the other way around. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was proposed for merge into others. I said "with".  As I said before, you might want to post on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about this.  The reason it stalls the nomination, is because if a merge happens, it changes the text of the article.  And a review has to be done after the merge happens.  If it's a proposed merge, and nothing has been decided, it kind of hangs it in limbo.  I would encourage you to post over on the WP Talk DYK page to get feedback.  I feel for you, but a proposed merge creates a stall. Maile66 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh shoot, I read that wrong. And to your advice of posting it there, I will. I went out to dinner earlier, so I'll do it now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Merge proposal closed. No articles will be merged with Loring Air Force BaseMaile66 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg MITO article was created February 2012 and is not currently 5X expansion.
 * Maile66 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's 5X from what it was when I decided to expand it, and this is including readable prose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right about this one, too. It's 5X. Maile66 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Elephant walk (aviation) article was created February 2012 as a stub, currently has only 1,534 characters of readable prose, and is not currently 5X expansion.Maile66 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's 5X from what it was when I decided to expand it, and this is including readable prose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. It's 5X.  You might want to remove the stub classification. Maile66 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of note, I just finished the massive expansion of the Loring article, and the merge discussion was closed, so I think this should be good to go! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Needs a full review, which includes the hook and all six articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg The Loring Air Force Base article is a nice piece of work, but it fails DYK requirements on two fronts. First, the 5x expansion took you 10 days (7 to 17 Aug), and these things should be done within 5 days. Ok, we could bend the rules and say that since it's such a substantial article (41 kB of prose), let's IAR this. But the second problem is that huge chunks of the article lack inline refs, and that's a core requirement that we couldn't possibly ignore. I count 19 paragraphs without refs. The rule of thumb is that you need at least one ref per paragraph. I haven't adjusted the hook (i.e. removed the bolding) or removed the credit as yet in case somebody disagrees with my view.
 * I'm on it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost finished. Essentially, I need to find citations on some stuff that was there before I even heard of the page, so that might take a tad longer than the rest of it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just need to cite the section where it talks about the based aircraft, and it should be good go to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to look over the article now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png The other articles still need reviewing.  Schwede  66  17:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I took a look at one of the other articles in this hook. I found that none of the sources cited in the article alert crew contains the term "alert crew". Moreover, I noted that two of the three cited sources appear to be military fansites. Without additional sourcing for the terminology, the verifiability of the article is in question. In a brief Google search, I didn't find much. I did find one possibly useful item: a page by a construction company that is designing and possibly also building "alert crew quarters" for the U.S. military. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's funny because in 2008, the F-15's had been gone from Otis for about a year, and there would be no need to even think of constructing them. Honestly, I have no idea what they are talking about, as they also tore down the alert hangers the next year. Otis did have an alert building constructed for it, but that was torn down about ten years ago. As for the links, I'll correct them in the coming days. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added some better (and more official) sources to the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's still only one source that truly supports the usage "alert crew", but the situation is now acceptable. However, I note that the article is exclusively about U.S. military usage. Is this term used globally (in which case the article should be globlized), or should the article be revised to say that it's a U.S.-specific military term? --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It should probably be globalized, as the image I included includes a Canadian unit, and I am sure other nations use this term as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I have reviewed Mole hole. Apart from a missing citation, it should be good to go (just long enough, new, no problems with copyvios, otherwise suitably referenced).  Schwede 66  09:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added a citation to that fact, so thanks for pointing that out! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Better still, you could add that fact to the body of the article and move the reference there, as the lead is to summarise the article. But either way, this particular article is good to go.  Schwede 66  02:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I have reviewed all these articles. Their creation or five-fold expansion all took place in early August within the DYK time frame. They are all long enough. My only concern is with the hook. The 15 minute deadline is mentioned in the Minimum Interval Takeoff article but has no inline citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just cited it, so it should be good to go. Thank you so much for finishing the review process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added an image to the hook, and changed "fifteen" to "15." It still comes out to 202 characters, so if you want, I'll try to slim it further. I figure if we have spent all this time creating a good hook, I might as well add an image to make it look pretty. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Hook fact now cited, new hook approved and image is in the public domain. Hook is not too long for a multiple article hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)