Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Red Tail Squadron


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Closed as Promoted - Cam (Chat) 05:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Tail Project

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it just passed WP:GA, but I could still use further advice for improving the article. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Your images need alt text. A disturbing number of your external links are highlighted, please check and advise on the status of the links. There are two disambiguation links in the article, please locate them and if at all possible remove them.
 * I have resolved the WP:ALT Text and disambiguation links. The links are highlighted because they are from a news retrieval service. They should all be visible to all readers, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your history section is a little thin; I'd like to see some information about when the CAF was founded a little about the plane they are restoring. In the case of the former,who founded the CAF, when it was founded, and where the group is based would be nice. In the case of the latter, a little about the plane's production number, assembly point, combat history, and post war status would be nice.
 * For that matter, I think the provenance section at the bottom of the page should be moved to the top of the page. That solves most of the above noted issues I have.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "In 2007 Gerry Beck, one of the primary restorers, was in an aviation collision of a P-51A and a P-51D during AirVenture 2007. Nonetheless, the rebuilding continued with the mounting of the engine in 2008 and the mating of the wing in 2009." Why do we need to know this? It doesn't really add anything to article, so I would suggest removing it.
 * Much of the press that this plane has received mentions the death of either Don Hinz or Gerry Beck. Thus, this article mentions both. We are a tertiary resource serving to summarize the extant secondary resources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the group plans to add a mobile exhibition in the form of a 53-foot (16 m) trailer." If I recall correctly, 53-feet is the legal limit for a trailer towed by a commercial vehicle - put simply, a tractor-trailer trailer. Perhaps you should note that in the article, while I can not speak for everyone, but when I think about trailer, I think about something pulled by a pickup truck, not a semi-truck.
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you logo could do with some shrinking, it seems a little large. We try to keep them around 300px or so if the image is fair use, although my memory on this point is admittedly hazy. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not download this logo and claim fair use. I got it from the same person who provided the three images.  I.E., this is the size the organization sent me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for the fast replies. All is in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The two items listed in the Reference section don't seem to be books:
 * Red Tail: Rising Above Adversity To Fly Again. Commemorative Air Force.
 * This was a coffee table book that did not have an ISBN. I will ask my sister how she obtained it and whether members of the public could do so as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ross, Stan and Cindy Bergquiat (2006). Thatcher, Janese and Darlene Dahlseide. ed. Don Hinz and the Red Tail Project. Office of Aeronautics, Minnesota Department of Transportation.
 * This is findable by the public. You could surely contact MDOT. No ISBN either though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be worth including in a reference section, I think the items should be findable by the public, i.e. should be real publications. Either orderable from a bookstore or findable in a library. Neither of these two has an ISBN or an OCLC number. So I'd suggest either dropping these, or trying to replace them from one of the reference lists you can find online, such as the one at http://www.redtail.org/education/resources.html. Some of the items listed there may be real books and might show up in worldcat.org. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These books can be found at http://www.redtail.org/cgi-bin/store.cgi?category=books . Even if they do not have ISBNs, they are readily available to the public.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I have some issues with the prose and logic. Once these and punctuation variations, etc., are addressed, I'll be happy to support. Pls see below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead.  The first sentence is confusing, leads away from the topic, and too long.  The whole lead seems too short.  It also contains information both not relevant to the article or which is not mentioned again.  The Tuskegee Airmen controversy is irrelevant to this article, although the Tuskegee Airmen themselves are not.
 * The Red Tail Project is an organization that originally focused on the restoration of a P-51 Mustang and now focuses on exhibiting the aircraft as a tribute to the Tuskegee Airmen, all of whom were African-American.[2] The 332d Fighter Group, composed of the 99th, 100th, 301st and 302nd Fighter Squadrons, were known as the Red Tails because of the distinctive red paint on their planes.[3] Although the black pilots were originally shunned in the white military, they eventually earned the right to fly combat missions. Although it has been claimed that they had a perfect record in their 15,000 missions as bomber escorts,[4][5] it was recently revealed that they lost 25 bombers.[6] Fundraising for various stages of the restoration project has been ongoing since the 1990s.[7] The project's efforts have been chronicled in two documentary films.... ??
 * Extraneous info that doesn't relate to the article, or that you don't mention again. Maybe: The Red Tail Project, part of the non-profit Commemorative Air Force, promotes the restoration and exhibition of the World War II era P-51 Mustang as a tribute to the 332d Fighter Group, also known as the Tuskegee Airmen.  (new para) The all African American 332d Fighter Group originally flew 15,000 missions as bomber escorts in the Mustang; eventually, the Airmen acquired the right to fly combat missions. In 1970, the Commemorative Air Force acquired an original P-51 to include in their educational program. In 1980, Don Hinz took charge of the plane's restoration, and developed the idea of the Red Tail Project, named for the distinctive red paint on the Airmen's craft. Originally conceived as a restoration project, Red Tail evolved into an education program. Although the P-51 was restored, mechanical failure caused a crash and the death of the pilot; the Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. (commemoration? re-enactment?) took over the plane's second restoration, and the newly-restored P-51 made its debut at AirVenture 2009 in Oshkosh, Minnesota. Since 2005, the Red Tail project has raised over $2 million (US) for the aircraft's maintenance and associated education programs, and the plane has been featured in two documentary films.
 * I have followed most of this advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) After the lead, you probably need a paragraph on the Tuskegee Airmen generally.
 * The Tuskegee Airmen is the popular name of a group of African American pilots who fought in World War II as the 332nd Fighter Group of the US Army Air Corps. This was the first unit of African American military aviators in the United States armed forces.  During World War II, African Americans in many U.S. states were still subject to Jim Crow laws and the American military itself was racially segregated.  The Tuskegee Airmen were subject to racial discrimination, both within and outside the Army, which prevented the Airmen from flying combat missions. Despite their adversities, the Tuskegee Airmen flew with distinction. In 2007, 350 Tuskegee Airmen and their widows received the Congressional Gold Medal (Library of Congress. Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on 29 March 2007, for a ceremony to award a Congressional... (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate), March 7, 2007; Evans, Ben. "Tuskegee Airmen awarded Congressional Gold Medal." Associated Press, March 30, 2007. Retrieved: 30 April 2007.) The airfield where they trained has been designated as a national historic site ( Official NPS website: Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site).
 * I have made most of these changes, but I had a little trouble interpreting the suggested citations. If you have a chance please correct my interpretation or offer advice.
 * those are cites from the Tuskegee Airmen article.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) then the provenance ....the plane was taxied around the campus as a late 1940s drunken prank  ? in a prank, drunken students taxied the plane around the campus in the late 1940s...
 * Prompt removal required that the wings be sawed off with a Skil saw in order that the plane could be towed to Billings, Montana where the wings were re-welded. Skil saw? isn't that a brand name? Should not it be simply circular saw?  To move the plane from its hangar and tow it the x mountainous miles to Billings necessitated the removal of the wings, which were sawed off with a circular saw. When the plane arrived in Billings, the wings were reattached to the fuselage.
 * :the wings were rewelded to what? How about the wings were rewelded to the fuselage?
 * O.K. How is that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) that the storm was not Hurricane Beulah really isn't important, except to refute the documentary. What storm was it?
 * I don't have any other souce to augment this storyline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) what makes IMDB a reliable source?
 * I state the source clearly so the reader can draw his own inferences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Commemorative Air Force is linked in the history section, but not at its first mention in the Provenance section.
 * It is now linked only in the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) In Fundraising, repeat the name of the project. It didn't set about raising, it adopted a fund raising goal of
 * you also refer to several strategies, but you only list one. And then you move to the documentary. Was the documentary a fund raising strategy? Or was it used on PBS as a fundraiser during Black History Month?  I don't understand.
 * This is still unclear. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This section needs greater clarity. It starts with fund raising, leaps to Black history month and the documentary, and back to fund raising.  The connection between the documentary and the fund raising is not clear. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Organization is not my strong point. Would you care to take a stab at rearranging it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) More on the documentary?
 * I don't understand this point. The documentary has its own article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be, but the documentary is jumbled into the fund raising section, and it deserves better space. Questions: is the documentary a fund raising effort, or something else?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In some sources the director has claimed his motivation was to heighten awareness of the fundraising efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 2004 crash....I originally wondered if that was a plane crash...
 * Added adjective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Who is Don Hinz? He got involved and something was born.  ????  This is really too vague.
 * From what I can tell, he was just a guy who hung out at the hanger the plane was at in its early restoration stages. He was a pilot though. I don't know how much more you want in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * he was clearly not just a guy.  Donald Hinz, US Navy, Commander, Retired.  His son was killed in Iraq and there is a lot more on Don Hinz: See here, and here. He was a Commander in the USNavy (Retired).  Look int he newspaper of his hometown...Woodbury (Wisconsin or Minnesota, I don't remember).  There will be an obituary.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have already addressed this point without striking it. What is the remaining issue?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You need to change the text of the article in note 28 to "FORT LAUDERDALE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN TO ADDRESS STUDENTS". The Miami Herald. 2007-01-13. p. 2B. Retrieved 2009-12-26.  As it is now, with 3 accused in killing face lineup, it makes no sense for this article.
 * That is the headline that databases would use. The purpose of a citation is to help the reader find the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is still linking to the same place, just indicating there is another article on the page. It needs to be clearer that the reader should scroll to the proper article.  Furthermore, it sticks out like a sore thumb in your bib, and looks out of place.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it is a different article, but rather it is a subheading of the same article, which is why it does not show up under its own heading.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks and general ce to smooth out some of the prose. See if it meets your approval. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you please Strike resolved issues above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like most of the edits. I do not like having a single-sentence paragraph in the WP:LEAD, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

'''no prob. See if this works for you. Also, is there a picture available of Jug Turner? And, what is so special about the P51C? (as opposed to the D or the B). why is it more difficult to find? fewer made, more used and shot down? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Moderate Support. the article now is better organized and informative. it may be that the information out there is just itself skimpy. I would have preferred to read some reason why the C version is better than the B or the D, for example, and perhaps what made this plane special (who flew it, etc.) (more about the plane). Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not really a plane buff, but hearing these Red Tail Project guys talk, it as if the different models of P51 are different planes. It might be like talking to computer people about windows XP, Vista, and Seven or as software version 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0.  Features are different on the different models. I do not see the differences in the sources I have used how ever.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support.
 * The lead is somewhat unclear: how many planes do they have? It uses the plural, and then talks about one like it is the only one.
 * I have fixed this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Better. – Joe   N  18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Provenance section you say that it was shuffled between various CAF bases, and in the History section you say several groups participated in the restoration. Please clarify.
 * I think these thoughts are now better coordinated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense now. – Joe   N  18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "In 2007 Gerry Beck, one of the primary restorers, was in an aviation collision of a P-51A and a P-51D during AirVenture 2007." Did he die? How did this set back the effort?
 * Did that suffice?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. – Joe   N  18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting article, but I think it needs some work. A thorough copy-edit would be in order as there are a few other places where the text might be tightened a bit or the order shuffled to increase readability. – Joe   N  22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good now, thanks.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.