Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/102nd Intelligence Wing/archive2


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

102nd Intelligence Wing

 * Previous nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/102nd Intelligence Wing/archive1

Well I improved the article and i've done what was told of me to do. I think this is of A-Class quality and i'll look forward to what others think about the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed the list tag at the top. If it were me, I would incorporate the previous designations, bases, aircraft operated, and major gaining commands lists into the text; they already duplicate to a great degree anyway. This would improve the look of the article greatly. I well understand that this is the standard organisation for USAF unit articles, but it does not really look very nice and as the tag shows, doesn't help it when being considered for a higher classification.
 * I've done a couple of minor edits in the opening paragraph and re-paragraphed the 'Origins' section. Buckshot06(prof) 12:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah. This is probably not something to ask me. I'm the one who goes into a page and hacks out a list from very few bits of information. I'm actually extremely stickler about the lists existing. This is also the first USAF article to be nominated for A-Class that I know of so I'm thinking that we might as well keep them because it's something unique to the pages. If it might cross anyone's mind, the lists should not be split from the page. I also would have a hard time doing so because it would end up sticking out like a sore thumb because of the way I would end up writing it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Hey Kevin. Agree with you on disambiguators; disagree totally with you on this one. Please examine other A-class unit articles - like 51st Army (Soviet Union), (note I'm biased here) which do not incorporate extensive annexes. I well understand this is USAF and AFHRA style to have these long lists, but it does not look like a featured article. Put simply, these lists is USAF house style, not WP FA house style, and we are, sorry to put it so bluntly, not writing the AFREG on USAF history for internal USAF use. That's the basis of my argument. I would propose that we leave the lists alone until they come up for promotion consideration, then reformat them for WP:FA standards, so that they have a chance of further promotion. Bear you no malice on this one, but we do need to consider this issue. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick note: I don't actually know what a 'bush breaker' is, but can figure out what 'crash trucks' are. Is it possible to get more descriptive names that are more accessible for non-New Englanders to understand for these two? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't realize that that was there. Those trucks are actually part of the Massachusetts Military Reservation. I guess that instead they should also be called a brush, not bush breaker. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently you spelt brush wrong. I think that the name is pretty self-explanatory but what do I know. I can't really think of any other name for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are they trucks that pull down trees and clear smaller bushes, with scoops etc? Thus could they be described as 'forestry clearance vehicles?' Am I right? Buckshot06(prof) 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh. A good visual is a hummer with a big metal bar welded to the front that pushes down brush. I'm not sure what they drive but those vehicles are popular in the northeast. I think your name sounds a little politically correct but I was able to link the trucks to their respective article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Note People, please don't be afraid to voice your opinions. This doesn't need to stall out again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now
 * There are a few bits of emotive language in here: "the 102nd is a source of pride among Cape Codders not only for its decorated past," What has that got to do with an encyclopedia entry?
 * Dates need to be consistent, some are linked, some aren't. It looks messy and some FAC regulars will oppose over it. Either link them all, or don't link them at all.
 * Maybe it's because I'm a Brit, but "inactivated" just sounds wrong to me.
 * "Air units" should not be capitalised
 * "Veterans of the 101st..." Could this not be expanded a little bit. It sounds odd. By veterans, do you mean veterans of the conflict, or do you mean service personnel who have retired and then helped to reorganise it? (It currently reads like the latter)
 * Could you link the aircraft within the text on first use. It would be useful.
 * "Although this is completely true,..." Is that a Freudian slip?
 * I have to say that, for me, the "Bases stationed" and "Aircraft operated" need to be integrated within the text. I don't believe they are neccessary.
 * "The BRAC decision affected the wing very little,..." This seems to be a random sentence to me. It needs context, what BRAC decision. This shows why these would be much better integrated into the text to remove duplication.
 * You shouldn't put the references in section headers, move it into the leading sentence.
 * As it is, it won't pass FAC with those sections at the bottom, and as such, under the new ACR criteria, shouldn't be promoted to A-Class. Woody (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Several paragraphs lack sources. For example, under Berlin Crisis the second and fourth paragraphs aren't sourced. Under Conspiracy Link the following sentence probably needs a source - The exception is that the military is allowed to conduct supersonic flight within certain corridors, which are located in the western United States. Further down there are even more unreferenced statements, and I believe these need to be referenced - you can never have too many. JonCatalán (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Comment First, thank you for commenting everyone! The citation issues always appear and some of them I know that they are factual but i'm unsure of where they might be backed up. I'll try to improve it though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see citation needed tags in the article, which means that information that should already be sourced is not sourced. I also see a paragraph in the BRAC 2005 section that has no sources, and that needs to be fixed before I would support upping the class to A. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.