Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-20 Tigershark/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008.

F-20 Tigershark

 * Nominator(s): Maury (talk)

I've been working on this article for the last couple of weeks. More recently I opened a peer review, and one reviewer suggested turning to the WikiProject Aircraft for additional help. This was extremely productive, and a bunch of the "usual suspects" jumped in and made all sorts of improvements. It's a wonderful example of how the wiki works. It's also a little more "mainstream" than my last FAC, so perhaps it will get a little more action here in FAC too.

Just a heads up: it took a while to sink in through my thick skin, but it's become clear to me that my prose stinks. I fully expect lots of comments about it, in spite of the reviews. As the other FAC winds down I'm ready to put my full attention into this one, so please, fire away with the Comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 14:45, August 3, 2008

Comments
 * What makes http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_1.html and all the other pages on this site a a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.f20a.com/index.html?
 * What makes http://www.johnweeks.com/stuff/hobby.html a reliable source?


 * Joe Baugher's series on "American Military Aircraft" is well known in the aviation community for basically being the Wiki before there was a Wiki (and props to Greg Goebel as well). His pages have been circulating for many years (I was ftp'ing them at 288 at one point in time) and I have yet to find a single mistake in them that was not in the original source. There are, by the way, a large number of mistakes in original sources in aviation books, Greene being the famous example.
 * Mark Wade is similar, but different. Mark's best known site is Encyclopedia Astronomica, which is a widely used and heavily referenced throughout the Wiki. However, while his f20 home page is well referenced, it also shows a lot of what appears to be POV. So, when writing this article, I had to make the decision to use only simple factual statements -- dates, numbers etc.
 * As to the last, "nothing much". All that was used from that page was a table at the bottom. It looks pretty accurate to me :-)
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles in question are privately written and publicly posted, so there's no sort of "submission" process. I'm sure that had the Wikipedia existed at the time, Joe would have use it, but c'est la vie. We need a different metric in this case. I'm open to suggestions. BTW, the references in question are basic statements, like the flyaway price of the F-16. I have no reason to even suspect these are questionable, given the extensive references he quotes. Let's not forget that we're supposed to reference the source where we found it, not where they found it, which is the policy I'm trying to follow here. Maury (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to lean that it is reliable, but unfortunately, the guidelines and policies on self-published sites are kinda draconian. I know it's not contentious or even particularly remarkable information, and that it's not exactly a subject that is going to appear in academia, but it still needs to attempt to meet the guidelines. Does it get any sort of mention in aviation/etc magazines? Has it been used by major newspapers? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Joe Baugher was extensively discussed on a recent FAR and decided not to be a reliable source. I can search for that FAR if needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go: Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II/archive1.  Not a published expert in the field of aviation, doesn't meet WP:SPS.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, another try: Joe Baugher is notable enough to have his own wiki article (no, I didn't write it!) which specifically mentions the notability of his "series of articles on aviation." The articles in question are fully referenced, and I have checked through them on several occasions (as I noted, the only mistakes I have ever seen are in the original sources he quotes). I believe this meets the criterion. Maury (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability and WP:V are two different things. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On the flip side, many of these "self-published sites" have no references...this one does! Heck, many news sites don't cite all of there sources that they used!  the_ed 17  02:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Baugher doesn't meet WP:SPS, but the original sources can be consulted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) fair enough. I'm just returning to this today after a very busy last couple of days. I'll be off this weekend too... Maury (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 19 "F-20 Loadout chart" is lacking a last access date
 * There are other webpages that are lacking last access dates, quite a few actually.


 * Are these required now? I normally leave these off all REFs, I leave the link checking to robots.
 * Generally, yes, they are. It's so you can find them using an internet archive if they go dead. Helps to have a date they did exist on to start from. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugg, ok, I'll do that tomorrow. Maury (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=_edpSrtACq0C&pg=PA45&dq=northrop+f-20&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U3gGV5H3YMdq78w6NXgBU6OShUrSQ is a book, not a web page, it should be formatted as such.
 * Current ref 46, you don't italicise the publisher for a book.


 * All fixed.


 * Are the books listed in the bibliography used in the footnotes? If not, they should probably go in a further reading section.


 * I was wondering that myself, but BZuk says he did use them (see the page history).
 * If they aren't actually listed in the footnotes, generally we don't list them in the bibliography. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I did move some of these out, but BZuk stated he used them. I am not going to doubt him on this. Maury (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, keep em coming! Maury (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

would make a nice peer reviewed reference I think.--Stone (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm still waiting to hear back from the author to see if he has a reprint available. Many are quite happy to provide one, having thought the article long forgotten. A similar reprint was invaluable for New Fighter Aircraft program, for instance. Maury (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * In the lead you refer to Carter and Reagan just so. For non-US readers this may be a little confusing, perhaps consider linking, at least? (fixed)
 * I think WP:HEAD still recommends avoiding The in headings, such as you have "The ANG role ". (fixed)
 * First comment applies to the "Kennedy administration" - which one? I know it's obvious to US readers but to the rest of the world, perhaps less so.  (fixed)
 * US DoD is overlinked in the first section. (fixed)
 * "when flown properly" unclear what this means. (fixed)
 * I'd put (USAF) after the first expanded use of the term. (me too! fixed)
 * And is it US Air Force or U.S. Air Force considering most other uses of U.S. in this article take the full stop? (good question, anyone have an answer?)
 * I think that it is U.S. Air Force.  the_ed 17  02:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)   (fixed)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "over its indifferent Soviet counterpart" according to whom was the counterpart indifferent? And what does that mean? (see if you like the new version)
 * " client states." - what are these? (fixed)
 * No need to reuse "Department of Defense (DoD)" again after the first time. (fixed)
 * "When DoD " "When the DoD"? (to be consistent within this article)  (fixed)
 * "was the way to go" sounds a little over-familiar. (fixed)
 * Put (GE) after General Electic. (fixed)
 * "Carlucci's flip-flops " would u-turns be more suitable? (that depends, in north america "flip-flops" is definitely the right term to use)
 * cockpit image caption is fragment so no full stop required. (expanded)
 * "The F-20s avionics " F-20's?  (fixed)
 * "purchased thirty-four " 34. (fixed - but I'm not sure I like this. you have a number followed by a non-number)
 * Page ranges in the references should use en-dash, not hyphen.  (fixed)


 * Keep em coming! Maury (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ps, are you sure about the endash? I'm finding lots of arguments against using them. Maury (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:DASH has changed lately? It may have done, I'm slow on the uptake lately!  I'll go check... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument seems to center on the search-ability, no-one would type in an en-dash into the search bar, so they won't find hits using it. Of course, that points to yet-another problem with the abysmal search engine we foist on our readers, but... Anyway, it only took about 3 minutes to change them one way, it's no big deal whichever way we go. In the meantime, I'll change -} U.S. Air Force! Maury (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing notes, this review has been up for two weeks, with no support, and will likely have a better chance once the reliable sources issues are resolved. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.