Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/102nd Intelligence Wing/archive4


 * 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.

Closed as not promoted by Woody (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

102nd Intelligence Wing
It has been improved to all suggestions in the previous reviews. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Overall, I think it is pretty good.... A few small suggestions:
 * 1. The pictures could be rearranged to place them in the appropriate places, and uniformly, rather than having them bunched together in the middle. A gallery may not be a bad idea IMO.
 * 2. Some of the language and paragraph organization needs to be tweaked, to improve readability, esp the lead section.
 * 3. A bit of reorganization in the midsection wouldn't hurt - there are far too many subsections. An idea that I can think of is to divide it into history/Origins, Operations (WW2, Cold war, 9/11) and present organization or status.
 * 4. A separate subsection explaining the organization and mandate and a small description of the units assigned would probably help. The units assigned could be brought into this section.
 * 5. Referencing seems good. A couple more offline and book refs might be good enough to get the page to FA status.

I'd also suggest looking back into the previous reviews to see if anything has been missed out.... a couple of points such as the role and actions performed still seems a bit unclear, as is the designations scuh as 102d, etc.

Good luck with this. PS, note that this is my first review, so don't take only my opinion. Cheers.  Sniperz 11 @CS 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06 The Cold War list of units needs clarification; not all of those were in France with the Wing! Also I've continued rolling the lists at the end into the text as per the previous A-class review; please feel free to suggest amendments on exactly how. Cheers and Happy New Year, Buckshot06(prof) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-I think all the units were in France with the wing as that was how they usually did things back then. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: Please take a closer look - there are Fighter Interceptor Groups labelled with places like 'Atlantic City, NJ' under the France heading! Buckshot06(prof) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response-Although they were in other geographically separated places, the Mass ANG history site indicates that 75 planes were sent over and the first reference states that all groups were sent over. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree, except that the sites on the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group from Texas make no mention of such a deployment. Can you double-check that the Texans did participate?

Buckshot06(prof) 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, just checked. That was the 174th Tactical Fighter Group, not the 147th FIG. Buckshot06(prof) 22:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet

Oppose A-Class status. Too many problems observed. I could probably find more problems than these if I continued my review but instead, I'll just say that I don't support this article for A-Class at this time. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead has too many instances of the word 'also'.
 * The sentence "It is a parent unit of the 101st Intelligence Squadron" in the lead is bare naked and not revealing of what the relationship or importance is.
 * The hyphenated "no-one" is outdated.
 * The Origins and World War II/101st Squadron sections don't assist the reader in understanding how the 102d is derived from the 318th FG. In Both those sections should be deleted.
 * In the World War II/318th paragraph, tell the reader why the military would reactivate an old unit with a new number while retaining its lineage. Why does the 102d trace its roots to 1942 in the 318th? Why doesn't the history of the 102d start in 1946?
 * In the Cold War section, the first paragraph doesn't mention the 102d. Delete!
 * Tell the reader what Sweeney did with the 102d, not what he did before.
 * Berlin Blockade: did the 102d incur losses?
 * The link for TU-95 Bear should be Tupolev Tu-95 to avoid redirect.
 * Is there a photo of a 102d F-106 Delta Dart escorting a Tu-95 Bear? I know of several other photos that are not 102d aircraft, such as this one from 1986.


 * Commment-If you familiar with any air force unit page that is standardized in its style, you will understand how the page is set up. I don’t agree with the second suggestion because all units that are parent units per se of another unit usually have this sentence within them. The fourth suggestion is part of the grey area that ANG wing pages all have. Most of the writers are unsure if they should write in this portion, and all seem to have done it. Air Force wing pages will occasionally do this. For your fifth suggestion, I can write in how the Air force recognized unit lineage but I’m afraid that someone will tell me to remove it. If you’re for it, then I will write it. Otherwise I agree with your other suggestions and if we could discuss the ones I mentioned, I will be happy to do what can be agreed upon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to say that I only found two uses of the world also within the lead. I'm assuming that our definitions are the same and this lead includes the first two paragraphs of the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, two instances of 'also' are two too much for me. I hate the word's common overuse in Wiki articles. :P However, putting "Additionally" and "in addition" in there instead is not the answer.
 * I still feel that the lead section isn't written well enough for A-Class. The sentence "It is a parent unit of ..." absolutely doesn't flow--I would have it go in its own paragraph with an expansion of what the connection entails. "Defence" is not spelled in the American way. And why are F-15s mentioned in the lead when the wing flew a number of aircraft?
 * Nice photo of the F-15 and the Bear. Is there a date for that? Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-I can fix the lead later and the spelling I can fix now. I couldn't find anything on the date of that intercept so i'm not gonna pursue because there was no information on the photo.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that the paragraphs that are purely about the 101st should be in this article. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will remove it if I can find anyone else who agrees with you, but for now i'll just keep it there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry, but this still hasn't reached the A-class criteria. My comments against each of the criteria are:
 * A1: Referencing is generally good, but not all material is supported by a citation (the criteria requires that "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources"). For instance, even routine material like "Pilots flew their Curtiss O-11s to temporary fields on Cape Cod while ground crews followed in trucks. One of these fields became Cape Cod Airport." needs a cite, most of the 'Berlin Blockade' section is uncited, etc - everything needs to be covered by a citation.
 * A2: I'll give this a pass, though there seems to be a slight bias towards recent events
 * A3: Pass - the structure is good
 * A4: I'm afraid that this is the article's biggest problem. Much of the text is unclear (for instance "The wing continued its air defense mission after the fall of the Soviet Union. Examples of this include a 1992 deployment of eight pilots, five F-15 Eagles, and 48 maintenance and security personnel, for five days to Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada" - only a single example is provided, and it's not clear how this deployment was an 'air defence mission' - I presume that the wing flew patrols from the base at Goose Bay, but this isn't specified), words are repeated and the use of military jargon is grating (eg, "During 1998 members both trained for and performed in real-world contingency assignments"). The article also suffers from weasel words (eg, "Many people who believe in a government conspiracy during the 9/11 attacks claim...", "There was talk among the members of the Massachusetts National Guard...") and use of the passive voice (eg, "Other escort missions involved the escorting of drug smuggling planes and the identifying of one mysterious ghost plane, which turned out later to be a weather balloon" - this could be written as - 'the wing also escorted drug smuggling planes [how frequently?] and intercepted a 'ghost plane' [when?], which was identified as a weather balloon').
 * A5: Pass, but I think that there are too many photos of F-15s - I'd keep the one with the F-15 and the Tu-95, the F-15 over New York City and the F-15 at the 2007 Cape Cod Airshow and remove the others. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-I addressed all that you said and that I could find. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were only examples - there are still lots of instances of uncited text, unclear wording and weasel words (I don't think that your recent changes improved those two examples of weasel words at all - for example, the article should specify who believes that there was a conspiracy to stop the jets reaching New York (is it really everyone who believes that the Government is conspiring to cover up the attacks?) and which members of the ANG discussed converting the wing into an intelligence unit. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm relying on you to find it because i'm too nice when it comes to looking for things in articles, but I will fix what you just pointed out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Lazulilasher Hi, and Happy New Year! This article is in good shape; I've got a number of comments that I hope you find helpful for future improvement. Well, that's all for now. Hope this helps. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Lead: The article's lead does provide a decent introduction; however, I felt it slightly incomplete. Would you able to expand it just a bit? For instance, just a concise mention of what the 102nd did in Operation Northern Watch. Remember: the lead should be able to stand on its own as a brief summary of the topic; also, it should entice the reader to continue through the entire article.
 * Vaguaries: After World War I ended, there was a general interest in organizing aviation assets for the National Guard system What does general interest mean?
 * Again, and in November was ordered into active Federal service for intensive training...could we expand a bit on intensive training?
 * Minor copy editing issues: "With the formation of the US Air Force the Guard units suffered from neglect" Suggestion: suffered from neglect --> neglected
 * Question:  and had little money for training is there a comparison? As in, how much was allocated to this Wing when compared to others?
 * I addressed everything except for the funds thing as I was unable to find anything on it and probably never will unless I contact the National Archives. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Attention-Is this anyone's IP address:74.242.244.138? If it is please tell me, otherwise i'll cite them for a disruptive edit to the 102nd's page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no way of checking that without at CheckUser request, and that edit doesn't seem too bad. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Can you expand a bit on them helping with the flight around the world, possibly providing some background for that?
 * Every paragraph needs a citation at the end. The entire Cold War section is almost uncited.
 * Watch double linking, i.e. you link to the 67th Fighter Wing twice in the same section. There may be other problems I missed.
 * You have a section on the Berlin Blockade, but that was in 1948. The section mentions 1961 at one point, I'm confused.
 * Sandwiched images in the Relocation to Otis section.
 * Again, unreferenced in the Post-Cold War section.
 * The whole 9/11 conspiracy theories section is bad. It's rather unprofessionally written, badly cited, and unclear about exactly who believes that.
 * Noble Eagle is unref'd at the end.
 * BRAC 2005 is unref'd.
 * The bit about the grounding of the F-15s needs explaining. Why, when, and for how long were they grounded?
 * The two images near that section sandwich on my laptop.
 * The New Mission section could use rewriting, it's rather unprofessional.
 * Better cite the lists of units, dates, etc.


 * – Joe Nu  tter  21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.