Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-17 Flying Fortress

B-17 Flying Fortress
Article was been extensively reviewed and sourced, is comprehensive, follows guidelines of WikiProject Aircraft/page content and this project. Hoping FAC is next. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It does appear to be long, detailed, thorough, and well-written. The introduction, while concise, accurate, and also well-written, somehow seems a bit off to me. Maybe a bit too short. Maybe if you could add a sentence or two? Or smoosh the whole thing together into one paragraph, eliminating the line breaks, to make it look more solid on the page? Just an appearance-on-the-page thing, not really a content of the writing thing. LordAmeth 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. While the article is well-written and well-referenced, it lacks comprehensiveness. Specifically:
 * The lead section is too short (at least by FAC standards), and also contains some gushing POV (B-17's most notable features were high cruising altitude and durability, its payload, speed, and range were small compared to its contemporaries like the B-24 and the Lancaster). "One of the most significant" and "devastating payload" could be done away with.
 * The development section is too short. B-17 was a fairly unique design. The section essentially only deals with the prototype crash.
 * I agree, and have tried to add content, but I find it just overlaps with whats found in the "Variants/design stages" section, so I've kept the development section to just the development up to the YB-17s and the entry into the war, and everything afterwards to the later section. Should this be changed? How about if we change the variants section to just a list and short description of each variant and move the current content to the design section? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No, you have the right time span for development (conception to entry into operational service) but a lot more can be said about B-17 development. - Emt147 Burninate!  06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 'K, I'll work on it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The operational history section is too short. There is no comment at all on the poor operational accuracy of B-17 formations, on the fact that only the lead aircraft actually did the aiming due to mid-air collisions early in operational career resulting from all bombardiers looking down on the ground while maneuvering their aircraft. There should be some discussion on B-17's advantages and disadvantages compared to its contemporaries as well (see above, and of course without violating WP:NOR).
 * The post-war section is longer than Development and as long as Operational history and deals primarily with the few surviving warbirds.
 * The section on foreign service is non-existent. What about German-captured B-17s shadowing American formations? What about all the other countries in the "Operators" list (number serving, anything notable?)
 * Foreign service operators (specifically Germany and Israel) are mentioned under the "Operators" section, but since Germany used them during the war I'll add a bit to the "Operational service" section as well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Survivor does not equal Notable B-17. Most of the warbirds are late-war built cargo/hack aircraft with no notable history. Perhaps the section should be split up into Survivors and Notable aircraft.
 * IMHO nothing demonstrates the B-17 durability better than the photos of "All American" after it was rammed by a German fighter. http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselag2.htm
 * I'd love to add a pic of this but I can't find a source (although I'm sure it'll end up being an Airforces pic) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All in all a good start but I think it needs a lot more contents. - Emt147 Burninate!  23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Object per Emt147. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)