Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-4 Phantom II/Archive 1

F-4 Phantom II
A concise-yet-comprehensive look at a Cold War icon, stable, went through a peer review. This is somewhat of a self-nomination as I did a significant rewrite of the article but it is heavily based on contributions from members of WikiProject Aircraft - Emt147 Burninate!  05:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While I might generally support it, for the time being I have to oppose based upon the fact that this article is not comprehensive. Several important variants, such as the F-4G, are missing. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All Phantom variants including both F-4Gs are in F-4 Phantom II variants. - Emt147 Burninate!  05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the F-4G was a very important variant, and was the last variant in USAF service. IMHO it warrants at least a cursory mention in the main article. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The same argument can be made for Vietnam era flying ace rides, etc. To maintain some semblance of NPOV, all variants are given equal treatment. Besides, the F-4G was not the last USAF service variant -- QF-4s and German-owned F-4Fs are. But your comments are noted, thank you. - Emt147 Burninate!  06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV? This isn't a political discussion on the F-4. It's simply the fact the F-4G warrants at least a cursory mention. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it was an important variant but so were the others. I tried to present a balanced overview with US forces given the same space as international users. The whole idea is to give an overview of the aircraft with the gory details spared for the variants page. You are more than welcome to integrate the F-4G into the text if you feel its important -- I don't claim exclusive ownership over the page. :) - Emt147 Burninate!  06:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One may argue that the other users were just as important, but bear in mind where 80% of the production was used. Therefore, DoD usage should dominate the article. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I invite you to make the edits you suggested -- the Phantom is extremely difficult to write about concisely. This whole discussion belongs on the article talk page now, sorry 'bout the mess everyone! - Emt147 Burninate!  07:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now considerably expanded the section on US military service. - Emt147 Burninate!  22:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Clear up the redlinks, and it's a good article. I have made a start but I have to go now. --The1exile 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Though alluded to, I'm not clear why it's called Phantom II.  Can a section descibing the letter variants be added? Such as what was different in A, D, S, etc? Coffeeboy 13:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a separate big page (linked from the article) describing all the variants in some detail. The Phantom had so many that keeping them all on the main page makes for an extremely long article. Thanks for your comments. - Emt147 Burninate!  19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't answer why it's called Phantom II, not just Phantom. Rlevse 12:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * McDonnell FH-1 Phantom of WWII fame got there first. Not sure where to mention this, but it really should be somewhere in the article. Any suggestions? - Lordandmaker 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is is the article, in the section about naming of the Phantom. - Emt147 Burninate!  14:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. So it is. I presumed it wasn't, given the above question. Lordandmaker 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - lack of inline citations, FA criteria 2(c). Could the lead be expanded, per WP:LEAD also? AndyZ 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you concerned there are too few in-line citations? Because they certainly are there. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate!  00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, the inline citations are in the parentheses. I would prefer if they are converted into footnotes, perhaps using the Cite.php style. AndyZ 14:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is in direct contradiction to WP:Cite which states that footnotes for inline referencing are depreciated in favor of the Harvard system. - Emt147 Burninate!  18:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may ask, where does it say this? I have been using the new style in many of my articles, especially ones that have reached FA status. Good work on the article, btw. Very interesting and well written! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Says so right on WP:CITE although as you can see I've given in and started using cite.php as well. :) - Emt147 Burninate!  06:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Appears to be fixed. Comment Nice but there's still POV and it needs good copyedit. --PopUpPirate 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please be specific about what is POV? Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate!  03:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Amazingly flexible, the Phantom easily expanded its original air defense role" and "Eager to show off their new fighter", just needs toning down a bit --PopUpPirate 12:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems fixed, changed to support --PopUpPirate 14:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The history is written mainly as one big block of text, and I know that there were several distinct periods of use, so it's very hard to get a chronological perspective on it. Also, seconding the issue of POV, (looking at "Either devoutly loved or passionately hated by those who flew it and worked on it, the Phantom gathered a number of nicknames during its illustrious career." here) and the need for citations, plus there should be at least an overview of the major variants in the main article. Night Gyr 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll work on the POV, variant summary, and chronology. What exactly is the issue with citations -- too few? I hope it's not a footnote problem because per WP:Cite footnotes for referencing are out and the Harvard system (which is what I used) is in. - Emt147 Burninate!  02:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief summary of the variants. If someone can explain to me their beef with the inline citations as they stand right now I'll gladly work on that as well. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate!  08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says you can use Harvard or footnotes. Rlevse 13:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But it also says footnotes are depreciated. - Emt147 Burninate!  16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It says many style guides have deprecated them. It does not deprecate them on wiki.  And besides, I hate the /reference style as it makes it hard to read when you're in edit mode.  I much prefer ref/note system. Rlevse 18:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll work on converting the inline citations. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate!  21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I love them, because you can easily split the article, and you can easily reorganise the text (try moving one whole section to be before another section with ref and note. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have converted the article to footnote citations. Would appreciate any other feedback on getting it to FAC status (all the comments have been great, none of it came out in Peer Review unfortunately, so thanks for all your help!) - Emt147 Burninate!  04:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object (I read the current version as of this timestamp. I have no expertise or particular knowledge in this area.) The lead is succinct and informative. The writing as a whole is quite clear and easy enough to understand. Although a significant amount of listing is used (e.g. specs), the material and format didn't bother me. The reference sources seemed credible. However, I found clear problems with structure and organization, set out below, which have are mainly writing and comprehensiveness issues:
 * Main sections should have summaries: Specifically, the "Development", "Operational history" and "Phantom in foreign service" need introductory paragraphs, summarizing the content of these quite long and involved sections. It was hard keeping track of the details without an overview. This was most apparent in the first section, "Development", which immediately launched into the "Super Demon" subsection, while the next subsection is "Phantom originas" -- this was confusing. Also, the "World record breaker" subsection seems maybe out of place, belonging perhaps in a Perfomance section (see also next point).
 * Organizational problems with the "Operational history" section The account of use in the various US military services was fine, until the final subsection, USAF. Here, the last paragraph dealing with general (air combat?) performance, doesn't quite fit the reading flow, and seems better suited to a separate "Performance" section. And the last paragraph of the section, separated by a horizontal rule, seemed quite out of place: it deals with Air Force and Navy demo teams, it should be incorporated properly.
 * Comprehensivenss problems with "Phantom in foreign service" The lead says the F-4 "remains on active duty in several countries to this day", however, that is not clearly followed up here; of the listed countries, it is not explicitly stated which are still using it. And the brief intro to the section is vague. There is no explanation of why these countries were selected and covered in some depth, and others not even mentioned. Which other countries have F-4s, or why is it not important to know? Also, the info for a couple of those mentioned is very thin (South Korea, Spain), compared to the others, and dates are used inconsistently (some things are dated, some aren't.)
 * Inconsistent use of inline citations - The inline restraint is...commendable (this article could've been a horrifying mess of citations), and I think all of the general technical and deployment info is best left to the general refs. However, where inlines were and weren't used is confusing. Certain details that seem similar to other info elsewhere are cited, others aren't. And statements where citations seem most appropriate have none, for example, "By far, the biggest weakness of the F-4", "the anecdote ... has no substance", "... then shot down, apparently by an AIM-7 Sparrow".
 * A "Performance" section - This is more of a suggestion, mentioned above, and it is partially covered in "Operational history", but IMO a separate, brief Perfomance section, probably following development, would add a lot of interest and context for the more general reader.
 * Costs not mentioned There is no financial/economic coverage. At the very least, the cost of an F-4 in various configurations should be included.
 * Overall, I found the article quite good, a minor copyedit is needed, and some technical terms could use clarification, but those are relatively minor issues, compared to the above. --Tsavage 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such a detailed and informative critique! I will work to address these issues. - Emt147 Burninate!  04:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Review update 18-Mar Some of the concerns I raised have been well-addressed, others not touched. I haven't gone struck anything in the review above, but overall, while improved, enough concerns still stand for me to maintain my objection. If this stays here for several more days, I'll check again. Thanks. --Tsavage 01:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I lack the references to address some of the concerns you raised (e.g. cost, current usage figures... my most recent sources are from 2001). Foreign users will be uneven by virtue of different use of the Phantom, e.g. Israeli Phantoms saw extensive modifications and combat while Spanish Phantoms were simply second-hand aircraft with no stories (that I know of) to tell. The World Record Breaker section very much belongs -- beating 16 world records was part of the Phantom's development cycle (as it is for all record-holding production aircraft). Most citations are placed at the end of sections or paragraphs to indicate that they apply to all of the above material. Two performance sections would be redundant and against WP:Air MoS. Thank you for following up on your critiques. Unfortunately, someone with better references would be needed to fill out the gaps. - Emt147 Burninate!  03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - I doubt this will be passed this time round, but for reference for your next attempt, the lead section should be three paragraphs long, summarizing the content of the article, by the standards set out in WP:LEAD. I believe that the very short lead accounted for why the right aligned TOC was being used... I agree, with such a short lead, the usual TOC does look ugly.  But that's one reason for having the propper sized one. Additionally, the various sections for each of the other countries are very stubby, and should either be expanded, or consolidated. Fieari 19:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, right-aligned TOC is not depreciated -- there was no consensus last time I checked. The TOC takes up more than a full screen height at 1024x768 and right-aligning it creates a reasonable article rather than a page and a half of blank screen. Guidelines in WP:LEAD are for maximum length not recommended length -- this article adheres to WP:Air MoS. See my response to Tsavage above for the countries. - Emt147 Burninate!  19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article". Appropriate length.  We're not saying the article should be deleted if it doesn't fit, or that it needs immediate cleanup attention as in the case of NPOV issues, but if it doesn't meet standards, it won't be featured.  I still have issues with a right aligned TOC.  Users come to expect a certain placement, and making things as usual makes it easier to read an article -- when things are in their propper place, you don't have to think about them as much.  Raul is free to disagree with my vote on the point of the TOC, but I'll flat-out refuse to support an article that uses it, except in extrodinary circumstances, which I don't believe this article merits.  As I said, expand the lead, condense the sections (or expand and then split using summary style) and it won't be so ugly. Note, "The TOC should not be longer than necessary, whether it is floated or not." If you're floating it simply because it's so long, than it's probably too long in the first place. Fieari 07:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)