Jump to content

Talk:102nd Intelligence Wing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On hold

[edit]

I have failed the GA nomination for this article, as I feel that it has too many flaws to be taken care of in one week.

  • One-sentence intro is far too short. It should be expanded to maybe two paragraphs.
  • Too many subsections in History section. Either expand the "Origins", "World War II", and "Cold War" sections or remove those subheaders entirely.
  • "Berlin Crisis" subsection is unreferenced, are the next several subsections below it ("Post Cold War", "Global War on Terror", "BRAC 2005").
  • "End of an Era" isn't exactly a neutral header. Maybe "Final operations"?
  • I don't think that references can be placed in headers, as is done under "Previous Designations" and a couple other headers.
  • None of the refs use citation templates such as {{cite web}}. References 9 and 11 are bare links.
  • Too many lists. Could any of the lists such as "Units assigned" be turned to prose?

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]
Please note, this is not a GA review, but it may help with future review processes.

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem may hinder a GA nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

  • Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes GA review, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second GA review

[edit]

Transcluded from review page:

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:102d Intelligence Wing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I've fixed the issues that originally failed the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer assessment

[edit]

Thank you for your nomination. However, although you fixed some of its issues, I think that you perhaps renominated this article too soon after its original review, as it still has many of the same problems. I'm therefore failing this review, as the article is still not ready for GA assessment. I've given a detailed explanation below.

Specific issues:

  • The article may need a more descriptive title. "102d Intelligence Wing" doesn't even tell me what country's armed forces the unit is from, and I'm not sure what 102d means (I'm guessing 102nd, in which case it should say this).
  • The lead is not a fair summary of the article. Per WP:LEAD, it should summarise rather than introduce the article. It needs to mention every major point covered by the article body, and should be capable of standing alone as a sort of mini-article in its own right.
  • There are many assertions made in the text that need explicit citations. From the relevant bits of the Good article criteria, citations should be given for all statistics, and statements that could be challenged. Just a few examples from the article are:
"The 101st actually had to raise $15,000 so that it could complete the runways."
"Otis Field was named in after 1st Lt Frank J. Otis, Jr., MD, a 101st flight surgeon who killed in a flight accident in 1938."
"Other escort missions involved the escorting of drug smuggling planes and the identifying of one mysterious ghost plane, which turned out later to be a weather balloon."
"Some people were willing to see the base closed but many in the community have gotten so used to the sound of the jets that they really did not want to see them go."
  • The prose is generally well-written, but patchy in places. I would recommend a general copyedit from an editor unfamiliar with the article. For example, from the Origins section:

    The 101st was also ordered into state service in 1936 and 1938 during a devastating flood and hurricane to fly observation missions and to drop food and equipment to stranded fishermen and the residents of Isle au Haut, Maine. It also played a big part in the U.S. Army Air Service's flight around the world. It also cared for the Spirit of St. Louis when Charles Lindbergh visited the state.

    (repetition of the word 'also'). Regionalisms are also discouraged, like the use of the word 'gotten' (which is only really used in American English).
  • There are still too many lists in the article - it might be possible to redesign these using tables (see Help:Table) if they can't somehow be worked into the prose.
  • Manual of Style compliance is not bad, but I noticed a few citations that are misplaced (they should directly follow end-of-sentence punctuation with no gaps). Per WP:MOSHEAD, section headings and sub-headings should in general only have their first letter capitalised (ie "Aircraft operated" rather than "Aircraft Operated"), and the table of contents is rather long, suggesting that the article layout could be improved by merging some of the subsections or splitting them off into their own articles. For example, I think that the History could be reduced to three or four subsections at most (Origins, WWII, Cold War, Post-CW).
  • The External links section could be trimmed down - external links are only really necessary to expand on content not covered by the article for copyright or other good reasons.

I think this article has the potential to be very good, but it needs more work that can be managed in the time allowed for a GA hold. Please feel free to nominate again when all the issues have been addressed, or you can take this article and review to WP:GAR if you feel I am mistaken in my application of the GA criteria. You may find it useful to look at current similar Good Articles to get an idea of the standards we are after (something like 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)).

All the best, and I hope this helps. EyeSerenetalk 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GA Comments

[edit]

This is a good article, but still seems to lack a number of requirements for GA-Class. Here are a few of my concerns:

  • The lead is still not concise enough, per Eye Serene's last comments
  • Entire sections have not been cited, which is vital to attaining this level - See Cold War and most of World War II
  • The title still isn't a great explanation - moving it to '102nd Intelligence Wing (United States) might be a better idea
  • References need combining
  • No citations for aircraft used by the Wing, except for one section which has a citation in the title, which it should't have.
  • Grammar still needs a good copyedit.

This really needs work done to it before it can pass as GA, and I fear as EyeSerene said last time that you've nominated the article too soon before the last review for any effective editing to have been done. Skinny87 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third GA review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:102nd Intelligence Wing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Content

[edit]

The Global War on Terror section needs to be overhauled. What exactly did they do during the 9/11 attacks? I suggest deleting the part about the number of sorties they flew in 2001 except that was a direct consequence of the attacks and before they didn't fly sorties or not on that scale.

I sent you a message about a sentence that lacks grammar and sense. I wonder about Flight 175 hitting the second tower at 9:03. You should also point out why the fighters didn't intercept that one. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

[edit]

I have doubts whether the use of fat letters is in accordance with MoS. Will have to ask an expert about it. Otherwise the article is GA quality and I suggest an A-class review after the content issue has been solved. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up

[edit]

I want all reviewers to know that the following issue has been discussed and agreed upon:

*References-I also can't seem to combine all references as some say that they are invalid, so someone who is good at this will have my praise if they can do so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First A-Class Assessment

[edit]
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.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

102nd Intelligence Wing

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lineagegeek (talk)

102d Intelligence Wing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Reviewing this article to determine the accuracy of a bot generated request to review links, I noted that several paragraphs lack references (partly, not entirely, due to link rot), so the article no longer meets even B Class criteria). It, therefore, needs a new review. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made a few tweaks to try to rectify some of the issues that I found, but unfortunately can't help with other aspects. If these can be rectified, I am of the opinion that the article could retain its A-class status, otherwise it should unfortunately be demoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are numerous paragraphs that do not end in references, which is as noted above the main issue for this article to overcome
  • in the References, the Williams source - is there a specific article within the journal that relates to the unit? If so, this should be added to the citation
  • what makes the Middleton website reliable?
  • for the Rogers citation (currently # 16) is there a page number that could be added?
  • currently, I think the article potentially has too much room devoted to the 9/11 incident, when compared to the space devoted to other topics, so I think it might be best to reduce this a little
  • "File:Too-102fw.jpg": is there a link to a website where this was obtained from? Currently the only source is "US Defense Department".

Comments

  • History:
"The 102d Intelligence Wing traces its roots to the 318th Fighter Group" The cited source does not support this statement (and without an idea of what "traces its roots" means it may be inaccurate. The 318th Fighter Group became the 102d Fighter Group, which is not the 102d wing, but a subordinate unit. The article as a whole confuses the group and the wing and compounds it by stating that the wing was also "previously the 69th Fighter Wing". Later the articles refers to the 67th Fighter Wing, but the three fighter units were not assigned to it, but to the 102d Fighter Group. One of the squadrons as well as other units listed are not supported by the cited reference (probably in part because one fighter squadron was in the Connecticut National Guard and the source is a Massachusetts National Guard website). This kind of sloppiness permeates the article. I question whether either B1 or B2 would pass a B class review.
"Guard units were generally neglected . . . Not supported by cited source (although this could be edited to do so)
Although the MA ANG wasn't mobilized for the Korean War. Per source cited, elements of it were, but not the 102d Wing (which was only established in 1950), so this is extraneous information. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to delist/demote -- I concur that without reliable sourcing for the uncited elements this can't remain A-Class, and since there's still a lot outstanding after almost three weeks (the USAF isn't my area of expertise unfortunately) I don't hold out much hope for this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think even one book from in the Bibliography section was ever referenced in the text. Please either change that section header to "Further reading", or delete the section. I very strongly urge the latter, since we have little way of knowing whether these sources provide meaningful amounts of useful/relevant information.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Motto

[edit]

How come the motto is listed as "Vir Omnis Tigris" when the patch (and numerous web references) state that it's "Omnis Vir Tigris"? I suggest to correct the infobox entry and move it from List of Latin phrases (S-Z) to List of Latin phrases (M-O). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

102d

[edit]

I'm assuming that this means "hundred second Intelligence Wing". Why is it "102d" rather than the more normal "102nd"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Historical Agency has a document that shows the use of "d" instead of "nd" or "rd" as follow-ons to numerical designations. Its about as authoritative a document as I can find. If you're really curious, put in a Freedom of Information Act request to the agency and get an answer. TDRSS (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FOIA Bear Intercepts

[edit]

You could possibly get a list or at least a number of Tu-95 intercepts from the unit. That could give more validity to the 102d's Fighter Interceptor mission back in the day. Also a list of commanders of the unit would be very helpful. (forgive me, my keyboard is going crazy right now); air force outstanding unit awards have general order numbers attached to them, as well as a date. Those can usually be gained from the unit or the National Guard Bureau (official and valid verification and references). TDRSS (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

The headline 'Global War on Terror' is obviously not NPOV. Arebenti (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.maotis.ang.af.mil/COMMANDERPOLICYSTATEMENTApril
    • In 102nd Intelligence Wing on 2011-05-23 02:00:28, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 102nd Intelligence Wing on 2011-05-31 21:46:10, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:102nd_Intelligence_Wing/Archive_1&oldid=1214176024"