Template:Did you know nominations/Loring Air Force Base Double Cantilever Hanger

Loring Air Force Base Double Cantilever Hanger

 * ... that the Loring Air Force Base Double Cantilever Hangar (pictured) was capable of storing five B-36 Peacemaker or six B-52 Stratofortress aircraft?
 * Reviewed: List of Indian Premier League umpires

Created/expanded by Ktr101 (talk). Self nom at 15:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg This article is currently proposed for merge with Loring Air Force Base
 * Maile66 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is currently no consensus right now to merge it, just so you know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true. But this nomination cannot move forward until the issue is resolved, one way or another. Maile66 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Proposal for merge closed - this will remain a stand-alone article. Maile66 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article length, date and sources check out. Hook is sourced, and has inline citation. Photo license is PD. This is good to go. Yazan (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg - Isn't this under-referenced? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The two paragraphs of the article have inline citation at the end of the paragraph. (I checked the sources, and they correspond to what's written, with no obvious plagiarism). You're free to double-check! Yazan (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not the footnotes, but if two sources is enough to support an article. I think it can be, but others may disagree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed at DYK here. And the discussion is actually about whether one source is enough to support an article, this one has two. At any rate, the guidelines do not specify how many sources, they only specify that the article should minimally have a citation at the end of each paragraph (D2). At any rate, with the DYK?no, this article will need a new independent reviewer. Symbol redirect vote4.png Yazan (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Actually, the guidelines do say something about how many sources, in D12: "Multiple sources are generally required, to ensure the article meets the general notability guideline." My question would be what makes TheMilitaryStandard (the first of the two sources) either reliable by Wikipedia standards or an indication of notability? It appears to be one guy's website, with no indication of its own sourcing. So is this hangar independently notable or not? The new reviewer will need to decide this, as well as the suitability of the first source. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ticking this one as OK. It's long enough, was new enough when nominated, and adequately supplied by citations to sources. The two sources are both good secondary sources; HAER is a particularly solid source, with good reference citations. The hook fact is supported. Image license seems to be OK. I had some concerns about closeness to the HAER source, but I don't think this is an issue for two reasons: (1) this source is PD-US and (2) I rewrote parts of the article in a manner that reduces similarity to the source. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Re: Notability, note that this building was written up in the Engineering News Record in 1956.Google snippet view --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)