Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/102nd Intelligence Wing/archive5


 * The following discussion is closed. 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

 * Promoted by Woody (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)'''
 * Nominator(s): —Kevin Rutherford (talk)

Almost a year later, I have incorporated all of the suggestions that I can think of. Hopefully this will be the last review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Good article, but I can see a few things I'd like to see addressed before saying I think it's worthy of A-class. First, in the intro, the phrasing "...is an intelligence unit located at..." might be better read as "...is a military intelligence unit located at...", since it's obvious that as an Intelligence Wing it's an intelligence unit. Nitpicky perhaps, but the phrasing bugs me. In addition in the intro, making it clearer that the 102nd used to be a fighter unit would be a good idea, as currently it sounds like it was an intelligence unit deploying to Berlin and Panama, then suddenly we learn it had fighters...

Also, I'd suggest either finding a way to expand the "Mission" section to more than one sentence, or working it into the intro. A one-sentence section just looks...odd.

Aside from these nits, it's a good article; after addressing them I shouldn't have any problems with it. - The Bushranger (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done all that you have suggested. Thanks for the criticism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Good work Kevin. Just one question - why are all those external links still stacked at the bottom? I'm not sure if full cites are required for A-class, but for FA such ext links would need to be wound into the text as refs or removed. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I kept those there a few years ago so that everything that could be found about the wing on the web would be there. I'm sure a few of those are duplicates, so I could probably axe a few of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the last link is a goldmine of unrecorded information, so I'll do some expanding there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. One tweak suggestion, the caption on the final photo should be modified. As it stands it's ambiguous if it was the F-106 or the Bear that later crashed. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also...shouldn't the page title be "102d Intelligence Wing", not "102nd"? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We've discussed that many times here, somewhere. Consensus seems to indicate that we aren't the military, so we can title pages however we want to. I think if we allowed them to be titled like that, things like this might have stood. I've significantly expanded the 9/11 section, so feel free to tear it up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

— AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments: I can see a lot of good work has gone into the article. I have a few comments, however. Apologies for the long list.
 * I feel that there are too many images in the article. On my screen this results in large amounts of whitespace (although that might not occur on other screens). You already have the link to the images at Commons, so I suggest paring the images down a bit;
 * in the Origins section this should be capitalised: "the guard" (as in "The War Department agreed the guard should organize...") as it is a proper noun;
 * please check your date format for consistency (in some places you use day month year e.g. in the Cold War section you have "1 November 1950" and then in Berlin Wall Crisis you use Month Day, Year e.g. "December 5, 1961"
 * there is some inconsistency in your abbreviations for United States, for instance in Origins section you have "U.S." (in U.S. Army Air Service), then in Cold War section you have "US" (in US Air Force);
 * in World War II section "August, 1945," shouldn't have commas;
 * what does "federally recognized" mean?
 * in the Post Cold War section this sentence needs a citation: "The same year, Detachment 1 moved from Loring Air Force Base, which was closing, to Bangor International Airport, where it operated until 2008";
 * removed statement per offline email, no source is currently available for this. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Post Cold War section, why did jets scramble to intercept Lufthansa Flight 592?
 * in the Post Cold War section, "ten miles" should be "10 mi" ;
 * the timings in the 9/11 Terrorist attacks need to be clarified per WP:MOS, are the "am" or "pm", or twenty-four hour time?
 * in the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks section the curly quotation marks should be straight per the MOS;
 * the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks heading should not be capitalised as it is as it is not a proper noun, it should be "9/11 terrorist attacks";
 * there is a tense issue in the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks section, i.e. you are telling the story as if it is occuring now, rather than having previously occured (e.g. "receives" should be "received", etc.);
 * I'm inclined to think that the treatment of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks section is undue weight in an article about a wing-sized element, but I would like the opinion of others about this, so I wouldn't oppose on this alone;
 * The last sentence in the Conspiracy link subsection needs a citation;
 * the section heading "Operations Noble Eagle" doesn't seem right, should it be "Operation Noble Eagle" (without the 's');
 * there is inconsistency in your capitalisation of "Northeastern United States" (in lead and Operations Noble Eagle section you capitalise, but in Cold War section you don't);
 * In the New Mission section; this clause does not quite seem right to: "...wing would become an intelligence mission..." (perhaps it should be "...wing would adopt an intelligence role"?);
 * In the same section, this sentence needs work: "The 102nd Fighter Wing was formally re-designated 102nd Intelligence Wing on 6 April 2008, will reach and fully operational in 2010" (will reach and fully operational is not grammatically correct);
 * The last sentence in the New Mission section needs a citation ("The building will eventually replace the temporary facilities that the wing is now operating in");
 * in the New Mission section you have a contraction ("didn't"), I don't think contractions should be used as they don't seem encyclopedic (please check for other instances);
 * the New Mission section shouldn't be capitalised as such unless it is a proper noun, which I don't think it is. It should be "New mission".
 * in the Units assigned/current units section, I suggest wikilinking "groups" if it exists so that the layman knows what sized units these are;
 * the Current units subsection needs a citation;
 * in the Fighter Wing subsection, there is a tense issue as it sounds as if it is currently how it is, not how it has been, for instance use of the word "is" instead of "was". I personally think a list would work better in the Units asssigned section, such as an order of battle;
 * citation # 15 ("9/11 recordings chronical confusion") apparently needs a page number, can you track this down?
 * citation# 26 is fully capitalised, I don't think this should be so according to the Manual of Style. Also its title and publisher are listed as the same. Is this correct?
 * in your citations you use a variety of date formats for accessdate (sometimes 23 April 2010, then 2009-1-07);
 * citation # 25 ("Otis Air Base Secure) has a garbled date (2008-11-252) [252 is the issue], can you please check and fix?
 * what is the criteria by which you chose what goes in the References section? You only have one listed there, but from what I can tell it is not even cited. You have a book by Rogers in the Notes section, but it doesn't appear in the References section. My general rule is to use short citation style for books in the Notes section and include the full bibliographic details for them in References section.
 * in the Berlin Wall crisis section, this sentence needs a citation: "Regular Air Force personnel and a group of Air National Guard personnel who volunteered to remain on active duty formed the 480th Tactical Fighter Squadron of the newly activated 366th Tactical Fighter Wing" (last sentence of this section).
 * Damn, the list is quite long. I'll get to it tomorrow, but I know that linking the current units will result in pages that will never be created unless we water down our standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to clarify, I'm not suggesting redlinking articles that won't/shouldn't exist. I'm suggesting providing an OOB style list for units assigned (see for example I Anzac Corps, although there are many different styles you might consider). The units that are notable can be linked, those that aren't don't have to be. However, such a list would in my opinion make it much easier to see which unit sits under which. As it currently is, the prose does not make it easy to understand. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to the pictures, it might just be you as I am not having that problem and never did on other computers. I do have a cite for detachment 1, it just won't open on my computer without crashing everything. It is a Freedom of Information Act request, so I can cite it if I am told how to. Citation 15 (now 16) actually never really had a page number as it is straight text. Probably the next best thing is to get a hold of the 9/11 Commission Report, which I don't think I will be doing in the near future. That book in the references section is actually on most of the pages here. I know that it is a holdover from the original page, and it's probably the only thing that has remained consistent during the life of this article. I think Tdrss might have been the one who added this. I'm going to finish off the polishing of the unit section now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've struck the comments that have been addressed. Overall I think the article is quite good. I made a few tweaks on things that I felt had been missed. Please review my changes and revert if you think necessary. I am still a bit concerned about the weight placed on the 9/11 response, but I would like to see what others have to say about this. Regarding the two uncited sentences, I'd probably suggest just removing them if you can't record the citations, as the sentences are not really that important in the scheme of things. Also, please note, I've added another sentence to the list that I feel needs a citation (in the Berlin Wall crisis section). Sorry, I missed this last time and found it during the subsequent review. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, again. I've left in the detachment part pending me hacking my computer somehow to open up that document. If you want, I can e-mail it to you to see if you can see it. Any images that I remove aren't going to affect the white spacing that much, so I'll just wait until some of them are copied to Commons. I'm tempted to move the 9/11 thing over to the military response page if you think it will be better used there, but outright deletion is not something I would support since it provides a lot of useful information. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, email it to me and I'll have a go at loading it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I got the source to open, but it didn't say anything about the Detachment move from Loring to Bangor, unfortunately. Please add back in if you can find a source for it. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: most of my concerns have been addressed. Regarding the undue weight issue, as no one else has commented on this, I won't oppose on just that. Otherwise, the article looks quite good to me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  08:53, 5 May 2010 (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.