Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service/archive1

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service

 * Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the use of the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Hammersfan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Buidhe

 * Oppose: There are significant issues with sandwiching images (MOS:IMAGELOC) and unresolved tags, as well as apparently unsourced sections. Some sources look quite dubious, such as thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk which appears to be a self-published website. Some of the captions are 8+ lines and should probably be trimmed per MOS:CAPTION. Any captions that present information that is not immediately obvious should have a cited source to avoid original research. For example, "An F-4K of 892 Naval Air Squadron lines up alongside an F-4J of VF-101 Grim Reapers aboard USS Independence in 1975. This shows the extended nosewheel oleo of the British aircraft, fitted to increase the take-off attitude for operation on the Royal Navy's carriers." I will strike my oppose if these issues are resolved. buidhe 03:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional citations added in sections indicated; some self-published sources replaced, while others (primarily the Thunder and Lightnings references) have been backed up with additional citations - this is because I believe the Thunder and Lightnings website provides a good summary; photo captions reduced in length; captions that are not merely stating what is in the image have been given citations; all images have been moved to the right hand side of the page where appropriate - only those that form galleries to show multiple images have been left centered. Please let me know if there are any further issues that need addressing. Hammersfan (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still seeing questionable sources being used. I have checked the following sources and can't see why they are reliable:
 * http://www.aviation-picture-hangar.co.uk
 * http://www.ukserials.com/
 * http://www.ejection-history.org.uk
 * https://www.phantomf4k.org
 * http://www.aviation-history.com/index.html
 * http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2002/xv497/xv497.htm
 * http://www.airvectors.net/avf4_3.html
 * http://www.thrustssc.com/thrustssc/Engineering/Development_of_the_Spey.html
 * This is not an exhaustive list... buidhe 04:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The links that have been struck through have been replaced by alternative citations. Of the ones that remain:
 * UK Serials is an exhaustive database of the serial numbers of UK military aircraft that has been compiled from, amongst other resources, the Royal Air Force Museum, Fleet Air Arm Museum, Military Aircraft Photographs (a major company dealing in the sale of images of military aircraft, including the collection of the RAF Museum), and Robertson's British Military Aircraft Serials 1878-1987.
 * Ejection History is a database of military aircraft ejection incidents that has been used as a reference in a number of different publications, including, but not limited to, Civil Airworthiness Certification: Former Military High-Performance Aircraft (US Dept of Transportation, 2013); The Panavia Tornado: A Photographic Tribute (Pen & Sword, 2015); Canadian Warplanes (iUniverse, 2009); Problematic Wildlife: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach (Springer, 2015); The Man Who Flies With Birds (Kar-Ben Publishing, 2009).
 * www.thrustssc.com is the archived official website of the Thrust SSC project to build the world's first supersonic land vehicle, which used engines recycled from an RAF Phantom. The website is listed as such on the ThrustSSC page, and is copyrighted to the SSC Programme Ltd, the organisation responsible for the construction and operation of the ThrustSSC car.
 * The Phantom F-4K website has been retained alongside other citations as it is owned and operated by a former Royal Navy Phantom pilot, and provides good summaries for certain elements.
 * The hidden table containing the entire list of UK operated Phantoms, and thus all citations on it, has been removed.
 * Please let me know if there are any further issues that need addressing. Hammersfan (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

More questionable sources: Again, this is not an exhaustive list of the unreliable sources that have been cited in this article. buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 03:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Please let me know if there is anything further that needs to be dealt with.Hammersfan (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Support Comments: G'day, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with the article. I have a few suggestions below (please note, I haven't gone line-by-line through the article yet): AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Follow on comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Image review
 * Harrier – 1988 Documentary (Television production). 1988. Retrieved 22 November 2016. (dead link for me, just being broadcast on TV doesn't make it reliable, missing producer information)
 * http://www.spyflight.co.uk — self-published website
 * Phabulous Phantoms – self-published website
 * https://www.helis.com/ — questionable website with no indication of reliability
 * http://www.rafakrotiri.co.uk/history.html —self-published website
 * http://www.targetlock.org.uk — self-published website, now defunct
 * Small nonprofits, such as ThrustSSC, are not assumed to be reliable and should be avoided.
 * Claiming to be a former Phantom F-4K pilot does not make someone a reliable source, this website should be removed
 * If UK Serials is based on more reliable sources, those should be cited instead.
 * Comments by the Secretary of Defence in Parliament should be clearly attributed to him. It also looks like WP:OR to me because King does not clearly say all of this in his speech, he only mentions Phantom once.
 * Items struck through have been dealt with. As regards the others, in addition to UK Serials being an exhaustive and searchable database, it has been included as a reference in the following publications: The Aircraft Spotters Film and Television Companion (McFarland & Co, 2016), Unmanned systems of World War I and II (MIT Press, 2015), The Panavia Tornado: A Photographic Tribute (Pen & Sword, 2015), Civil Airworthiness Certification: Former Military High-Performance Aircraft (US Dept of Transportation, 2013). Further, I have gone through the references in an effort to try and work out which ones you may have an objection to, as you are unable to provide a complete list. I have removed a number that I feel are relevant because of the potential that you may deem them "unreliable", while at the same time retaining some that have been backed up with additional citations. Once again, please let me know if there is anything further that needs attending to. Hammersfan (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, first thing, prefer nominators don't strike through reviewers' comments even if they believe they've dealt with them -- best leave that to the reviewer, if they choose to.
 * Second thing, I'd like to get an update from on how things are looking source-wise now. If we're continuing to find issues we might be better off archiving this and improving outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hammersfan has removed many of the unreliable sources, however I am still finding significant issues:
 * Phantom locations: most of this section appears to be unsourced.
 * XT889 Kbely Museum, Czech Republic. no source
 * "Basic specifications": Cited mostly to a self-published website, https://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/history.php
 * Specifications (F-4K)—cited in such a way that it's impossible to tell which information is coming from which source, at least one of which is not reliable
 * Other selfpublished websites are still in use:
 * Thunder and Lightings, in several other places
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150619160419/http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/post-war-military-aircraft/phantom/phantom.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150713214138/http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-05.htm
 * Unclear or dubious reliability
 * http://www.lightning.org.uk/11squadron.html — small association, not clear if it has a reputation for accuarcy as required by WP:RS
 * http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/pdf-docs/arkroy53.pdf unclear reliability, but the homepage looks like a self-published website http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/
 * "Comparison of HMS Ark Royal with a contemporary US Navy aircraft carrier" table, this seems too tangentially related to the topic to keep, same with the picture of the Ark Royal. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed and replaced all references except those from the www.axfordsabode.org.uk website, as these are not pages from that website itself, but are direct scans of pages from ship's commissioning books that are merely hosted on the website - in effect, the website serves as a repository. As regards the comparison table, this has been discussed below following comment by AustralianRupert - I feel both the table and photograph are necessary in displaying why the modifications to the aircraft were necessary. While I am confident that the text does explain this, both a table and an image add value to the explanation, as well as providing an immediate reference point for readers.
 * There are still several references to thunder and lightnings as a source, and also http://www.xisquadronassociation.co.uk/history.html is another minor association without much reputation, so it should be avoided. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 10:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now removed all instances of the Thunder & Lightnings website. I have cited The Phantom Shrine as a reference to those aircraft that have been scrapped - this website is specifically acknowledged in Gledhill's Phantom in the Cold War: RAF Wildenrath, 1977–1992. Once again, let me know if there are any other issues. Hammersfan (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "centerline" --> "centreline"?
 * "The F-4J featured an nosewheel" --> The F-4J featured a nosewheel"
 * some of the paragraphs are quite long and it might help to split them. I suggest splitting the following paragraphs:
 * In 1964, the Royal Navy withdrew...
 * In 1970, Ark Royal embarked 892 NAS...
 * In May 1982, three Phantoms from...
 * In the early 1970s, the RAF issued...
 * After the Falklands War, the UK government began...
 * In 1963, the prototype Hawker Siddeley P.1127 STOVL...
 * suggest referencing all of the notes, currently only the first four are referenced
 * incredibly minor point, but the hyphenation of the ISBNs is inconsistent
 * the following terms appear to be overlinked: touch-and-go landing; arresting gear; RAF Leuchars; English Electric Canberra; Hawker Hunter; General Dynamics F-111K; interdictor; British military aircraft designation systems; interceptor aircraft; No. 111 Squadron RAF; No. 29 Squadron RAF; No. 74 Squadron RAF (there are more -- if you install the duplinks script it will help you find them all
 * "impossible to fulfill" --> "impossible to fulfil"?
 * if you can address the above points, I will come back and take a closer look
 * Nick-D took the corresponding article about the aircraft in Australian service to FA (albeit many years ago), so he may have some ideas for for further improvement, or sources that might be relevant if needed for the notes, or replacing any of those listed above (if still outstanding)
 * All indicated issues have now been addressed. Please let me know if there are any others you feel need looking at. Hammersfan (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've read through the article again this morning. Please see below for follow on suggestions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * this needs a ref: "The P.1154 was thus left as a wholly RAF project."
 * this paragraph needs a ref: "...would be undertaken by a further purchase of F-4 Phantoms."
 * "four brand new or modernised aircraft carriers" --> move the aircraft carrier link to the earlier mention of this term
 * "so plans were put in place to rebuild the two ships to enable the operation of the aircraft.[ii]" Does the ref in the note also cover the sentence in the body? If so, suggest duplicating the ref in the body to make this clear
 * suggest splitting this sentence: " This deployment showed the necessity for the modifications fitted to Ark Royal, as the heat from the afterburners of the Spey, combined with the increased angle of attack resulting from the extendable nosewheel, during the initial launches from Saratoga caused the deck plates to distort, leading to subsequent catapult launches being undertaken at reduced weight without the use of re-heat". Perhaps this might work: "This deployment showed the necessity for the modifications fitted to Ark Royal. During the initial launches from Saratoga, the heat from the afterburners of the Spey, combined with the increased angle of attack resulting from the extendable nosewheel, caused the deck plates to distort, leading to subsequent catapult launches being undertaken at reduced weight without the use of re-heat"?
 * "until, in 1972, 11 Squadron was redeployed" --> " until 1972, when 11 Squadron was redeployed"
 * "During the 1970s, UK and France" --> "During the 1970s, the UK and France"
 * this needs a ref: "As a result, the UK government decided to purchase another squadron of Phantoms.
 * caps: "UK Based Phantom Units" --> "UK-based Phantom units"? (same for the other headers in the Phantom locations lists)
 * not sure if the table comparing the Ark Royal with Independence is really necessary. The article and images make it clear that the British ships were significantly smaller
 * "List of Phantom aircraft on display that have been in service with the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy" --> "The below list details aircraft that were placed on display after service with the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy."
 * "List of Phantom aircraft on display that have been in service with the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy." --> move the links here to earlier mentions
 * All items struck through dealt with. As for the comparison table, I have removed the columns containing ship specific data (power, speed, range), but have left the ones that can also be concerned with the operation of aircraft - the displacement, the length and beam, and data about the catapults. This allows the reader to see in table form the basic reasons why the aircraft needed such significant modification, beyond the text, which says "the British carriers were smaller". I think this is a useful addition to the piece as it puts the text detailing the necessary modifications to the F-4K into a clear context. Let me know if there are any other issues that need to be addressed. Hammersfan (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Thanks for your efforts. Added my support above, so long as Buidhe is happy you have addressed their concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
 * Looks like in this pass some captions that are not complete sentences had periods added - should be full sentences only. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

'''
 * Suggest scaling up the comparison of HMS Ark Royal and USS Independence
 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:Phantom_FGR2_43_Sqn_refueling.jpeg: source link is dead. Same with File:F-4J_F-4K_CV-62_NAN6-75.jpg
 * File:Ark_Royal_and_Independence.png: what's the source of the data underlying this diagram? Same with File:UK_F-4_Phantom_3-view.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Issues indicated dealt with - I have replaced the dead source links on the two indicated images, and replaced the diagram, as I created it in a thoroughly unscientific way attempting to scale down the indicated lengths of each ship myself. I have instead used an existing photo from Commons that I believe displays what I am attempting to indicate fairly well. Please let me know if there are any other issues that need to be addressed. Hammersfan (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the second diagram is still in place? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have swapped it for an alternative. Hammersfan (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Mark83
A lot of work has gone into this but I believe there is a lot of work to do on two criteria which will take some time:
 * "1a well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" - not badly written but the prose needs work.
 * "1b"comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" - some confusing text.
 * A non-exhausive list of examples (from intro and first sections):
 * "In the mid-1980s, a third Phantom variant was obtained when a quantity of" - How many?
 * "At the time, the British aerospace industry was still a major source of equipment" - Still? Could suggest it isn't now which it is.
 * "The 1957 Defence White Paper brought about a significant change in the working practices" - What "working practices"? The next paragraph goes on to talk about rationalisation. The two paragraphs should be condensed as it's the same point.
 * RAF should be singular.
 * " The development of TSR-2 saw increasing..." - should be "the TSR-2". We don't say the 'development of Tornado' for example. The paragraph and the next are inherently linked, which makes me feel they shouldn't be 2 different paragraphs.
 * "The P.1154 was thus left as a wholly RAF project." - is redundant.
 * Labour elected in 1964 and the defence review took 2 years? This isn't me pointing out and error, just a probing question that the text makes me think of.
 * On cancellation of P.1154 and TSR-2, "As a consequence, the government was forced to order new aircraft". It wasn't forced, it would have been part of their decision making on cancellation. And the whole article to this point is about replacement of the Canberra, Hunter & Sea Vixen.  This quote makes it sound like a "new" issue at this point of the article.  The way it's written here it also treats the RAF requirement as primary.
 * "Hawker Siddeley at Brough Aerodrome" was appointed "sister design firm" - was this a corporate entity? Surely it was HS that was the "sister design firm" and not 1 site?
 * The next paragraph then discusses BAC's redesign - which is it? HS or the parent?
 * Intro says assembled in US but this paragraph says rear fuselage built in UK. Were these shipped to US? Just needs explained.
 * "Because the government then had a policy of negotiating fixed-price contracts, these costs could not be evened out by a large production run, which left the total order at 170" - don't understand why a fixed-price contract excludes the possibility of savings from a large production run?
 * British Aerospace is described as doing work in 1969 and 1970, 7+ years before its creation.
 * The loss of one of the pre-production examples in 1978 is irrelevant in the context of prototype testing (subject of the paragraph).
 * "The British Government ordered a total of four prototypes "
 * Run-on sentence: " The two pre-production F-4K aircraft were constructed alongside the prototypes, and were initially used for fit check trials of the various systems to be fitted – the first was used for catapult/arrestor and deck landing trials, and the second was primarily for testing the radar and missile systems."
 * Repetition: " These were procured to replace the Sea Vixen then in service in the role,"
 * Intention to build four brand new or modernised carriers, rebuild Eagle and Ark Royal, and two new aircraft carriers - I don't understand from the text if these are the same, related, or entirely distinct initiatives. Mark83 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * " In turn, when the Phantom was replaced, its major roles required three separate aircraft (see table)" - is bordering on original research. It's asking the reader to make an inference on the capabilities of the aircraft from what aircraft replaced it without any kind of verifiable analysis or context. Mark83 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

On further review, I respectfully suggest that this nomination is withdrawn. I believe there is too much work to do to reasonably expect the FA criteria to be met in the near future. I find the article interesting and would be willing to assist. In the meantime, some more examples to explain my concerns: There are issues in between, but the Replacement section has a lot of issues, e.g. Mark83 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Inconsistencies in McDonnell/McDonnell Douglas. First instances not linked.  And " first flew on 27 June 1966 at the McDonnell Douglas plant" isn't possible as McDonnell Aircraft didn't merge with Douglas until the following year.
 * Repetition of 140 aircraft order for RN.
 * "The rest of the aircraft would be a reserve and for training" I know what that means but it doesn't read well.
 * Aircraft don't embark in a carrier, but on a carrier?
 * A&AEE abbreviated on second instance, not first.
 * Discussion of Ark Royal refit in two places - this should be merged.
 * British English for this article? Then modernization > modernisation
 * Phasing out > phasing-out
 * Repetition of 20 aircraft from RN > RAF
 * Run-on sentences, e.g. "At the time, the RAF's primary interceptor was the English Electric Lightning, which suffered badly both in terms of range, loiter time and weapons fit, all of which hampered its effectiveness, especially in long interceptions of Soviet Air Forces and Soviet Naval Aviation bombers and reconnaissance aircraft over the North Sea and North Atlantic."
 * "could thus fly further for longer" > had better endurance (or similar tighter language)
 * In F-4M Phantom FGR.2#Close air support the article goes back to Hunter replacement. Has this not been covered?
 * Massive overuse of semi-colons throughout.
 * The use of the Spey engine is repeated.
 * F-111 overlinked.
 * The comparison table between RN and USN carrier needs to go. The point is made without this.
 * I bumped on the comparison tables with the other aircraft.
 * Images for images sake? e.g. the F-4M Phantom FGR.2 - 1 image in infobox, 2 in-line, and 3 in gallery.
 * Are there too many mentions of individual squadron history? This is covered in "Operators" and "Phantom locations" and "Aircraft replaced by and replacing the Phantom" as well as in the main body text.
 * Contradictions between MRCA (Tornado) not being developed as an interceptor, and then in fact being developed thus.
 * ADV needs explained to readers.
 * "Eventually, the Tornado accounted for the two FG.1 squadrons at RAF Leuchars" -- Doesn't make sense.
 * "In the Royal Navy at the same time, the withdrawal of the conventional aircraft carrier was envisaged to see the end of fixed-wing aviation at sea." -- Doesn't make sense.
 * "Because of this policy, 892 Naval Air Squadron used a black capital Omega (Ω) letter on the tailfins of their aircraft, as it was believed they would be the final fixed-wing squadron to be commissioned." -- what does this mean? what is the relevance?
 * While I am content to remove elements Mark83 - the galleries could well be described as superfluous, while each variant's list of operators could be transposed into the list of locations, and if necessary the comparison table of the two carriers (although I still feel that information is relevant) - if the vast majority of objection is due to the prose and style of the writing, rather than the actual content, I don't feel that I am able to undertake any more work on it. Having written the vast majority of it, I don't feel that I am objective enough in my own reading of the text to be able to alter it in such a way that you may find meets the standard. If you would like to undertake to collaborate I am happy for you to contact me directly. Two things I would like to point out:


 * F-111 is not overlinked; the links go to two separate articles - General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark and General Dynamics F-111K
 * Aircraft squadrons can embark in aircraft carriers, as evidenced from the text here and here
 * Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss collaborating. Hammersfan (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur with the call for withdrawal, these issues appear to be substantial and are likely best addressed outside of FAC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Once content and sourcing issues have been fixed, WP:GOCE is very helpful for fixing prose. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)