Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/ASM-A-1 Tarzon


 * 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.

Not promoted EyeSerene talk 12:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ASM-A-1 Tarzon

 * Nominator(s): The Bushranger One ping only

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe it covers the subject to the maximum amount that can be achieved with the (remarkably scarce, considering) sources available; does so clearly and in a well-referenced way, and is both an educational and enjoyable read. The Bushranger One ping only 23:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a very interesting article. However, I think that it needs a bit of work to reach A class:
 * The lead is a bit short, even allowing for the overall shortness of the article. While I'm a bit hesitant to recommend my own stuff as an example of best practice, the approach I used at Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short might be useful.
 * "the ASM-A-1 saw brief operational service in the Korean War before, as a result of safety and cost issues, being withdrawn from service in 1951." - reads oddly. I'd suggest moving the 'as a result of safety and cost issues' to the end of the sentence
 * "Intended to be carryed by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress medium bomber" - the B-29 was designated a very heavy bomber in 1945
 * Why was this bomb developed? I presume it was so that it could be used in the planned invasion of Japan.
 * Did the British provide any assistance with this weapon's development? I imagine that they would have been very interested in it given the success of the Tallboy in RAF service
 * The paragraph which begins 'The largest bomb used in combat during the war' is actually a single sentence. It should be tweaked so that it's several sentences
 * The sentence which begins "Modifications were made to solve the problem" is over-long and rather complex. It would be better to cover this material in a few sentences.
 * What's "prime altitude"?
 * The article states that the weapon was considered so successful that the USAF ordered 1,000 of them but later states that the USAF considered it unreliable and not worth its cost-premium when the project ran into trouble. This seems a bit contradictory. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
 * While I'm not sure that we really need to know the nomenclature of the radio control systems, clarify that the ARW was the transmitter and the URW was the receiver.
 * Clarify that the annular wing and revised tail surfaces were additions to the standard Tallboy.
 * You need to consult Volume 3 of William Wolf's book U.S Aerial Armament in World War II as it has some different info on the bomb and its development. If you can't obtain a copy, I can scan the relevant pages for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I can get that from my local library, actually - I'll put in the interlibrary loan request tomorrow, and get to addressing the other concerns starting over the weekend. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now, mainly contingent on the above comments not yet being addressed. I'll support once these, and my own, are addressed.


 * A little bit of context might be necessary to explain why the large bomb was developed. Maybe some info about bomb doctrine during World War II, as its hard for the layman to understand why they'd even bother to try a bomb like this given its limitations.


 * How many of them could one B-29 carry?


 * As with the above comment, more elaboration is needed on the 1,000 bomb order and cancellation. Was the lost aircraft the entire reason the project was cancelled, or was it the results of the tests?
 * Any idea on how many were ultimately produced?
 * Some additional context might be necessary to explain any lessons learned from this weapon, and if it influenced the direction subsequent bomb developments took. — Ed! (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.