Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Avro Vulcan


 * 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.

No consensus to promote at this time EyeSerene talk 08:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Avro Vulcan

 * Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk)

One year ago, this article attained GA status. Since then, multiple members have worked hard to further research the article, study and reexamine various elements, and greatly expand some subsections. Editors have been made aware of the intention to place this through higher levels of reviewing months ago, and have taken the time to provide preliminary feedback for improvements which have been taken onboard. The article seems stable, and it has my attention to carry out improvements in response to the comments made in this review. I feel the topic to be an important element of the history of the Cold War, in effect the Vulcan was the primary nuclear deterrent for Britain for a considerable number of years; it toured the world demonstrating both favour and threat alike to distant shores in various diplomatic efforts and joint operations. Its much-reported presense in the Falklands War came when its retirement was imminent, yet may have been one of its most recognised contributions to History (not too unlike how the SAS gained popular recognition following the Iranian Embassey Seige). I feel the topic is worthy, the article is prepared, and editors are ready to take further action as need be. I submit that Avro Vulcan be considered by the dedicated teams here at MilHist. Kyteto (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources comments


 * In the bibliography but with no citations: Arnold 2001, Bullman 2001, Chesnau & Rimell 2003, Dodds 2007, Holmes 2004, McLelland 2007
 * Be consistent in how you annotate multiple authors ("and" vs. comma)
 * Page ranges use en, not em dashes.
 * Be consistent in whether you include "UK" after British publisher locations. Eisfbnore   &bull; talk  07:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as the nominator of the article's previous (WP:AV) A-class review which didn't attract much attention. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments, working through the article from the start; More later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan" should be bold rather than italics?
 * Do we need to explain that it's an aircraft? If not, "... is a jet-powered delta wing strategic bomber that was operated ..." would be fine.
 * "The Vulcan lacked defensive weaponry," This sentence is ungainly and might benefit from being split into two.
 * "In its final years of service, some of the Vulcans". Awkward construction; perhaps replace "its" with "the" or some other fix.
 * "on the potentialities of weapons of war" - does this just mean "on potential weapons", or something more?
 * "American/British/Canadian" - MOS:SLASH seems to think / shouldn't be used in this way.
 * "ought not to have exceeded" - perhaps better as "ought not to exceed".
 * "ie atomic" should be "i.e. atomic" per WP:MOS.
 * Clarify whether the requirement was to carry an atomic bomb and a 20,000 lb conventional bombload; or just one of these two options at a time.
 * Comments
 * Your alts are not working.
 * The alt image details or the alt technical specs list? Kyteto (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the belated reply. Images. Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made sure the alts are now consistent, but removing the unique one that was put in alone for some reason. Kyteto (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's it....... for now. Buggie111 (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any more refs for the second paragraph in Prototypes and Type Certification? (Not that much of a problem)
 * Possibly create Bomber Command Development Unit.

Comments
 * This reads a little oddly as the text is plural, but the aircraft type is singular: several scale aircraft, the Avro 707, were produced to test and refine the design principles.
 * This also struck me: use of electronic countermeasures (ECM) based in the tail The location of the ECM equipment is probably too much detail for the lede because you'd have to explain that that's where the equipment is.
 * I'd move the bit in the lead about the improvements of the B.2 to immediately follow the date of the B.2's introduction. As is, the lede doesn't flow well because that's not in a logical spot.
 * Shouldn't the type designation in the 4th para of the Origins section be Avro 698?
 * Is there a link for tail-warning radar?
 * , however the U.S. would cancel Skybolt's development. Tense doesn't match the rest of the paragraph. Should probably be "the U.S. later cancelled the development of Skybolt" or something similar.
 * This is also odd. Like the rest of the V-bombers no foreign country purchased Vulcans, however interest had been present. Other countries expressed interest, but nobody bought any or similar phrasing would work here.
 * The end of this sentence is problematic as well: As part of the offer for the TSR-2, the RAF would have transferred several V-bombers, including Vulcans, to the RAAF, however the F-111C was procured.
 * Link to chaff and flares.
 * So all B.1s were retrofitted with aerial refuelling receptacles? Were they included in the B.2 from the beginning?
 * It is unclear if all B.1s were retrofitted, I've looked at sources, and it is not commented on any absolute fleet-wide implimentation. A source has suggested that the refuelling aspect was included in the B.2 to begin with, but it is a rather general text and may have retroactively 'assumed' this on the basis that it was there as a difference from the B.1's service configuration. I can't be certain the refuelling systems were there from the start hence nothing in the article has been said in the article one way or the other deliberately. Kyteto (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Link to W28 warhead.
 * British airborne elements coming under effective fire. If you mean aircraft, say so, and don't use this euphemistic phrase.
 * This is awkward because you talked about the refuelling requirements in the proceeding paragraph. At the time, these missions held the record for the world's longest-distance raids; reaching the islands required extensive in-flight refuelling operations.
 * Dates need n-dashes.
 * How can an engine be supersonic? Rephrase or explain.
 * Do we know when the B.1/B.1As were retired? And when were the B.2 variants retired?
 * I like the comparison of variants table. Nice to see what the differences amounted to. More articles should have them, IMO. I'd provide metric conversions though.
 * I'm getting strings like UNIQ3ac3d407427bba11-nowiki-0000004A-QINU20UNIQ3ac3d407427bba11-nowiki-0000004B-QINU in your notes. Something's broken in the software because this isn't the first article with your note style to display like this for me today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looking quickly, some of these notes been acted on and some haven't. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to all answers that I could; consider all issues given to have been addressed unless deliberately noted otherwise. I'll look into the metric conversions. Kyteto (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (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.