Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North American P-51 Mustang


 * 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 yet ready for promotion. Constantine  ✍  09:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

North American P-51 Mustang

 * Nominator(s): Petebutt (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it meets all the criteria and deserves examination for elevation to A-class Petebutt (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments: G'day Pete, I've only had a quick look, but at this stage I don't believe it meets the A-class criteria. I made a few minor tweaks and I have the following observations:
 * there are many uncited paragraphs. At a bare minimum, each paragraph would need a reference at the end of it;
 * there appears to be a mix of US and British English in the article. Please choose one (I'd suggest probably US English here);
 * there are "citation needed" and "page needed" tags that should be dealt with;
 * the article probably needs copy editing as well. For instance (please look through the entire article):
 * this isn't a sentence: "In 1996, in the BBC Television series Decisive Weapons which was narrated by Sean Bean."
 * this is missing something: "The P-51 Mustang was the subject of a 30 minute episode entitled "The Cadillac of the Skies" in reference to its exceptional performance and how it started off as a British purchase as a low level attack fighter into the powerful long range bomber escort that it would eventually become in the Air War in Europe through a combination of being fitted with the Rolls Royce Merlin and the fitting drop tanks that allowed to escort the bombers of the United States 8th Air Force all the way into occupied Europe and back."
 * the citations should be standardised to use the same style. For instance compare citation # 36 "Sims 1980, pp. 134–135" to citation # 38 "Gunston, Bill. North American P-51 Mustang. New York: Gallery Books, 1990. ISBN 0-8317-1402-6."
 * be careful of overlinking terms. I removed one, but there are others throughout the article;
 * if these points can be addressed, I will gladly have another look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Petebutt and AR, thanks for your work on this. Petebutt, after AR's points have been addressed and you've gone through checking for basic grammar mistakes, I'll come help with some copyediting. Also see WP:Checklist. Also, please contact some of the people who have edited this article to let them know it's being reviewed ... I don't see your name in the list of the 100 top editors. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with AR's comments, and also have the following comments:
 * The coverage of Australia's use of these aircraft seems much too detailed
 * The 'Design and development' section seems incomplete given that it stops at the prototype stage - the article should cover the development of the main variants of the P-51 and their characteristics
 * The material on the USAAF's use of the P-51 in Europe seems too strongly focused on the air-to-air role
 * The coverage of the aircraft's use in the Pacific during World War II seems a bit sketchy
 * What's the purpose of the 'Expert opinions' section? It gives the opinion of a single expert, and some self-serving nonsense from a German pilot (if the Luftwaffe's pilots could outmaneuver the P-51, why was it the main instrument of the destruction of the Germany fighter force during early 1944?)
 * The British use of this aircraft deserves much greater coverage given that the RAF was the second-largest operator of the type, likewise the material on the use of the aircraft by China seems too short Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with the comments of AR and Nick-D, plus the following:
 * The "Genesis" sub-section is too long and detailed; some of this, especially the technical details, could be transferred to North American P-51 variants (which in itself needs work, for example there is no description of the NA-73X): this sub-section can then be changed back into 'Design and Development', with a brief description of why the NA-73X was conceived and a brief description of each major development.
 * Agreed on Australia (*cough* partly my work) - the technical descriptions of Australian manufacture can also be added to the 'Variants' article which will shorten this (now done, some editing still needed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorhistorian (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 January 2013


 * 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.