Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of jet aircraft of World War II


 * 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 - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

List of jet aircraft of World War II

 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...having finally gotten in the mood to go and thrash at it after several years of having it prominently displayed as 'I'm gonna do this', I've completely revamped the article. As I've used several FL-ranked lists as a basis for its formatting, style, and referencing level, I believe there's enough here to take a stab at the slings and arrows of outrageous reviews with this one. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * No images for the last three aircraft?
 * Unfortunatly no. The only free images of I-153s and Yak-7s are of the wrong variants, while there aren't any of the Su-5 at all. The photos that do exist may be PD by this point, but that's a minefield I prefer to let others explore. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Messerschmitt_Me_262_050606-F-1234P-055.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:XFD-1_NAN8-46.jpg
 * Me 262: ✅ The USAF Museum has shuffled the deck with their URLs multiple times over the years. That's a widely-known USAF photo, however to simplify things I've changed to another known-PD photograph. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * XFD-1: ✅ I updated the URL, but I also found a superior photo to use and changed to it. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Bell_YP-59A_in_flight_060913-F-1234P-008.jpg: permission listed doesn't match tag, and possible to provide a more specific source?
 * ✅ It looked like somebody grabbed all of the Air Force site photos of P-59s and slapped them with generic PD tags, ugh. I wasn't able to find that exact one, but I did find another I could properly source. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Reichenberg_Pilot_2.jpg: source link is dead, and do we have a source to support the tag used?
 * Unfortunatly my V-1 book has gone adrift, but this is a widely-published photo of a Reichenberg that was captured by the US Army. I'll see if I can dig up the book to cite its photo credit. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I tracked down the original photo source (U.S. Navy Technical Mission-Europe, as sourced by Osprey's V-1 Flying Bomb 1942-52) and tagged accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Caproni_foto.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
 * I added what I believe to be the appropriate US PD tag, as it was taken in 1940-1941 and was being used to illustrate the aircraft at least as far back as the 1950s. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Ohain_USAF_He_178_page61.jpg: source link is dead, and why does that tag apply?
 * I tracked down the original USAF publication in the Internet Archive, as it doesn't appear to be on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base's site anymore (see also earlier comment about the USAF reguarly shuffling their URLs because they can). While the original page of the document on which the image was published isn't archived, the list of illustrations is, and an old version of the image confirms this was the same image. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Horten_H.IX_V1.jpg: is a more specific source available?
 * Not that I'm easily able to track down, beyond recognising this as one of the 'grabbed after the war by the Army and wound up in the archives' pictures. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Junkers_Ju-287_V1_side_view.jpg: what source was used to create this image? Same with File:Messerschmitt_Me_328_V1.jpg, File:MiG-13_I-250_3-view_drawing.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The image the Ju 287 was cropped from was stated to be own work, and the Me 328 was also stated to be own work. The latter, at least, I don't recall ever seeing anywhere else. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep - to clarify, this is a verifiability question rather than a licensing one. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Image comment: Somebody pointed out that the Aviation WikiProject's style guide for lists explicitly says 'do not use pictures' and removed them. I'm not so sure about the validity of not having them, but it does clear up any image concerns...! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges
Will start soon. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  00:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Sturm here, you'll need to add short paras of context for each for it to pass. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair; I'll try to get to work on it sometime this week. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sturmvogel_66

 * I'm really only familiar with ship lists, but the format there is to have one or two short paragraphs on each class of ships with an emphasis on decription and background rather than operational service. I'd recommend that you look over the current FLC candidates to see if they're following that format, which I find much more informative than a simple list like you've got here.
 * I looked at those, but apparently the majority of aircraft-themed lists use a much simpler format, for better or for worse - List of Indian naval air squadrons was a primary influence there. I may see about adding to the "Notes" field a little for each, though.
 * I knew that there weren't many aviation lists at FLC to use as a model, but I will note that the Indian naval air squadron list has a lot more detail in the lede than does your list. It works for that list, but I'm not sure how well it would work for yours. Again, I strongly recommend that rework the list to add short paras discussing each aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get on that this week, if I can wrench my muse away from Obscure Drones and Missiles. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow MOS:APPENDIX by changing all of your various headings to level 2 headers.
 * ✅ This one sticks in my craw because to me it looks far worse, but I for one welcome our new mobile device overlords...
 * It's actually an accessibility issue for those vision-impaired readers who need a screen reader; they can't interpret the semi-colon in front of the heading name properly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Aaaah, that makes more sense, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ensure that all of your bibliography follows the same exact format. Some have states in the same places of publication (Annapolis vs Annapolis, MD) and some lack the year entirely. Be sure that each book does not have a page number; those should be used for the cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bah, I knew I was missing something in cleaning up what was there when I started this. They should all be consistent now, with only the differences in display between cite web and cite book in date looking different. Also IIRC some locations- i.e. "New York", "Chicago", "London" and such - are supposed to not have a state/country added? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, national capitals/world-class cities are presumed not to need state or country identifiers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I'm not going crazy (well, crazier) then! - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As a note, I haven't forgotten this, and I'm going to start work on adding per-aircraft detail straight after New Year's. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day . This seems to have stalled? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A little, because I've been suffering from a nasty case of gastrointestinal upset over the past week. I'll try to see if I can whack together the rest of the synopses this week. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Bushranger, hope you have recovered after your illness. Just wondering where we are at with this review? As it has been over a month since the last post here, and longer since the article was edited, I think it might be best for this review to be closed. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm better now. And...yeah, for now, it might be best to close this until I can muster both the time and motivation to finish the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to hear you are feeling better, Bushranger. I've released the bot now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.