Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/P-38 Lightning

P-38 Lightning
I've spent some time rewriting for NPOV, and other cleanup in prep for an FA nom, but find myself running out of ideas for improvement. Need a review to kick start improvements. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
This looks quite good. My main suggestion: more citations! There are still [citation needed] tags in the article, and the entire "Service record" and "Postwar operations" sections—and much of the "Variants", "P-38s in Popular Culture", and "Noted or surviving P-38s" sections—are uncited.

Apart from that, this needs some copyediting before moving on to FAC; but I can't see any other substantive problems. Kirill Lokshin 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan
Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "with the engines mounted forward" - forward of the wings? Further forward of the wings than other aircraft of the era? forward of the cockpit?
 * "The aircraft was used in a number of different roles, when equipped " - should this be a semi-colon rather than comma?
 * "dive bombing, level bombing, ground strafing " - can you wiki-link these to relevant articles? I have no idea what level bombing is
 * "empennage" - don't think you should use terms like this (even wiki-linked) without briefly explaining them in-line in the article
 * "flights revealed tail flutter to be a problem. During high speed " - colon rather than full stop/period?
 * "The engine sounds were a unique, rather quiet "whuffle," - Whuffle isn't a word. Might make sense to those who have heard it, but as someone who hasn't, this is meaningless. Would it be possible to get a soundclip maybe?
 * " (Interestingly, the bomb could not be removed and for the duration of the war, aircraft had to go over it every time they took off.)" - sounds like an urban legend. cite?
 * "The reasons for frequent engine failures were due to failing " - reason is that, not reason is due to or reason is because
 * Military operators - perhaps this should be split into main operators/purchasers and other misc uses - a single craft used for testing/evaluation (UK)_ hardly counts as an oiperator, neither does a country with a single captured plane (Italy).
 * "P-38s in Popular Culture" - I loathe these sections. Why must everything be related to popular culture. A link from films using the plane to the plane article I can understand - the other direction makes no sense
 * General characteristics - given all the variants, perhaps it could be made clearer which these specs are for?

Rockfall

 * I like the way you've bolded each type number as they come up - that's a suprisingly effective means of keeping track and referring the to the table at the side.
 * "Nothing came of this conversion, either." - substantiate this? The tone of this sentence is also slightly less academic than the rest of the article.
 * "Oddballs" - Could this not be "miscellaneous others"? Oddballs is again quite colloquial.
 * The reference list runs from endnotes to a bibliography with no dividers. This is a style point, but it looks messy.
 * Overall though, it's a very tight article. Thumbs up. Rockfall 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)