Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/United States Air Force Research Laboratory

United States Air Force Research Laboratory
I'm looking for general feedback on the article. I'd like to get it to at least B-class if I can. I've done a lot of work on it over the past couple of months and external feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Nigelbeameniii (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gotten input from User:TomStar81 from WP:MilHist already. I'll be working on fixing those soon, but please add additional input. Nigelbeameniii (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

MuZemike
You should redo the Mission Statement section. It's not the best idea to copy the organization's mission statement right into the article as it can be construed as not following NPOV. (It also will get some flack up at higher levels of review, especially for GA/FA status.) I would either get rid of the section or rewrite the section from a neutral, third–person perspective, i.e. simply paraphrasing the mission statement from a neutral perspective.
 * I kind of reworked the Mission Statement. Mostly I just made it a list and tried to reduce "marketspeak" types of phrases. I'm not entirely happy with it, so I might come back to it later.

The history section needs more citations; I have pinpointed where you can best add additional references in order to verify the laboratory's history.
 * I pretty much rewrote the History section. It grew out of a History Office section and didn't feel like it flowed right to me. I think I addressed all of the citation notes, but one or two could have slipped through.

For the organization section, get rid of the bulleted lists at the beginning of each subsection; describe the locations in one or two sentences using simple prose. Readers may not understand what the locations mean if you use bulleted lists.
 * In its vision statement, the Directorate includes the goals of "integrating personnel with systems technology," and "protecting the force." — just as in the mission statement section, rewrite it from a neutral, third–person perspective. The same applies to any other mission statement quotes in this section.


 * I have added places where you should add citations.
 * Working on it. I've got references, it's just going to take time to sort it all out. :)


 * Where I have placed cite this quote, you should replace the direct URL link with a citation which includes that URL link. I have placed these after the mentioning of the directors.
 * I believe I've now transitioned all of these to inline references.

Otherwise, it looks good, so far. The organization of the article is there, and all sections are well–built. The big thing is citations. Every fact stated needs to be cited. Finally, watch the original research and any qualitative statements such as XYZ has played a significant role in developing aircraft.

As far as assessment is concerned, I think this is surely a B-class article, looking at the assessment scale at a glance; add more citations and make the other noted corrections, this has a shot for GA. Nice work! MuZemike (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From a MILHIST perspective there are too many unsourced paragraphs to warrent a B-class rating at the moment, our general policy on citations as it relates to B-class is outlined in our MoS, and at the moment there are large areas where citations are noticably absent, hence the Start-class assessment from our camp. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you people know the standards here more than I do. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm using strike-throughs and notes here to keep track of my work and so you can see that I'm working on it. Feel free to comment on any of my changes. Thanks for the input! Nigelbeameniii (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81
I've copied his comments from my talk page to here for completeness sake. Nigelbeameniii (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patients on this matter, I apreciate it. I have added some fact tags on the information that seems iffy, including several paragraphs that have no references at all. In addition, I have a few other comments/suggestions for the article:


 * See about removing the external links to the men in charge of the R&D branches. It will make it easier to clear higher levels on the assessment chart (in this form, it could be argued, you are using two different citations styles, and that won't sit well with others when and if you decided to go past B-class).
 * These are now all inline citation format.


 * Lose the see also section. The argument here is that the information present in a see also section should be incorporated in the main article body. If you need to have the see also sections consider adding them under the different R&D headers with the see also template.
 * Done. I think they were all already wiki-linked earlier in the article. I just wasn't sure if it was OK to get rid of it before.


 * I am not sure about this, but there may be a standard infobox template that could replace the one you currently have in the article at the top on the right. If this is in fact the case I would recommend switching out the one currently in the article for the standard one, it will help with assessments past B-class should you choose to go that route.
 * I actually didn't even notice it wasn't a standard template until now. I've switched to the Infobox Military Unit and moved the budget with ref to the intro paragraph.


 * File a request for peer review. It may help you ID other points of interest for improvement.
 * Lastly, what I have added to the article is only suggestive material from one coordinator for how to improve. Asking others for input may provide you with points that I have missed.
 * As always, if you need help with anything, feel free to ask and I will see about lending assistance. Good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's easier for me to keep track of the non-fact tagged issues, I'm doing a strike-through when I address specific points, typically with some comment. Thanks! Nigelbeameniii (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen

 * The article has an extreme lack of third party refs, with most coming from its own websites and affiliates. The article needs refs because many sections have none at all
 * Lack of 3rd party refs, right? I think every section has some refs, they just may be AF at the moment. I noticed the skewed ratio a week or so ago and I'm in the process of looking for 3rd party refs for as much of the citable content as possible.


 * The lead needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article.
 * WP policy is generally against referring to everyone using honorifics in the main body, there's no need to address every head of every group as "Dr".
 * I looked around and it does appear you are correct (not that I'm surprised). I've removed the Dr, Mr, and Ms honorifics. I left military rank in abbreviated form ("Col" instead of "Colonel", etc).


 * Are the official names of the labs in the table actually "labs" - because shorthand notation of formal names is not a good idea.
 * Actually, the table I'm referencing in the book does call all of them "labs" but I'm thinking it may be a better idea to spell it out instead. I believe the formal names were always "Laboratory" or "Laboratories".


 * "HTML" isn't required in teh refs because that is the default.
 * Good point. I think that's taken care of now.

— Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As with the previous two, the strikethrough is me. I've added these to my growing to-do list. Thanks for the input. Nigelbeameniii (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Born2flie

 * Lede
 * 2nd para: It sounds awkward saying that the lab was formed. I know that it is a military organization and military units are formed, but it just comes across as awkward. The facts surrounding the creation of the lab seems more important than the budget or its size, so perhaps this information might work better in the first paragraph. Numbers less than 10 should be spelled out rather than be represented numerically. --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd para: The first sentence reads as if the demonstrators were conducted. Use of Notable not necessary if the projects were indeed notable. --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Body
 * Mission Statement: A whole section just to cover the mission statement in list form is overkill. This whole section could be introduced at the end of the History section in paragraph format, "Today, the Laboratory's mission includes..." --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * History: This section feels out of order. "Prior to 1990,..." feels like the beginning of the history, but it comes in the middle of the first paragraph. There is no mention of the Packard Commission and its study and recommendations. This section skims over more relevant facts from Duffner's history and glosses over some of the more negative aspects of his accounting of the history. --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Organization: Mission seems to be overused. quoting each of the directorate's mission or vision statement doesn't seem to explain exactly what each does in everyday english and leaves it in militarese. The current directors of each directorate or section will probably work better in an infobox or table unless the director does something notable for that section. There is also some general clean-up needed throughout this section. --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)