Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/1

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result: Kept per resolved comments below Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The killer I think is the history/operational history section. Iirc the entire desert shield/desert storm coverage is only one paragraph. The tags and banners are another issue. I think the banner can be dealt with by whitelisting those links as they're government links, so copyright shouldn't be an issue. I also have some issues with the prose, style, and some of the facts. For instance the gun program that produced the GAU-8 was separate from the A-10 program. One of three proposed guns were central to the design of the A-10. The flight competition was already over and fairchild was moving into production before the gau-8 was even chosen. Plus there are some sections that could see some expansion or improvement. Sometimes it's hard to tell how articles ever got high assessments in the first place.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've already patched up the Intro, which was the only really bad part of the article. The gulf war section certainly needs to be expanded, but again, that seems like a relatively easy fix. I think our time is better spent with the minor patches this needs than pondering previous editor's mental states. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article appears to be well cited and reasonably well written. The issues brought up in the reassessment appear to be something that could be fixed without delisting the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no real fault in this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at the article, thinking perhaps to close this reassessment, but there has been active editing to it over the past few months, and from what I see at the present time this article does not meet some of the GA criteria. Beyond the fact that there are several bare URLs, which falls short of the verifiability requirements, there are a number of places where it jarringly switches from past to future to past tense, notably in the Upgrades subsections, and it talks about events that were supposed to have been completed in years that are now in the past yet there is no update of the article to indicate that either the upgrade was successfully completed or that it has taken much longer to complete. (One example: the conversion from A-10A to A-10C.) There are also places where the prose is unclear, in part due to introducing unexplained terms. For example, in the "Production" subsection the use of "WS. 23" is confusing not merely because the term is not explained, but because it looks like the sentence ends after "WS." There are also two mentions of TUSK; the second is the one that explains the program as a 2016-announced modernization, and seems to contradict the earlier usage, which talks about initial fittings in 2011. There is also the occasional problematic sentence, such as at the end of the penultimate Hog-Up paragraph.

The thing about a reassessment is that issues brought up during it (such as in the initial post) can certainly be fixed during the course of the reassessment: the whole point here is to note an article's shortcomings and get it back to GA level. However, if these shortcomings vis a vis the GA criteria are pointed out and the article is not brought back into compliance, then the article is delisted. It isn't kept at a GA because it could be fixed, but only if it is fixed. TeeTylerToe, Maury Markowitz, K.e.coffman, can this article's current issues be fixed? It's certainly B-class even as is, and has a great deal going for it, but it needs some work. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:, before we proceed, are you aware of the history of this article prior to the listing here? If not, I'd suggest perusing the bottom half of the talk page and edit history circa April. You'll forgive me for saying that I believe this GAR is is the result of an attempt to take a talk-page dispute out-of-band when the editors there disagreed.

Now you have raised some actual issues, but honestly, they strike me as relatively minor. As such, if you can provide a bullet list, I would be happy to address them. But in the short term, I would do so only in the context of the talk page of the article, not in the context of this GAR, which I will now officially ask to be closed. I would have done so long ago if I had any inkling it was still open. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz, I hadn't been aware of the history of the article, nor, for that matter, of TeeTylerToe's history—he's currently got over five months left of a six month block, and for what I can tell there was forum-shopping involved in that block. I would not be surprised if this GAR stemmed from the dispute you mention.

That said, I came here in good faith about six hours ago thinking to close this, and instead found genuine issues with the article that clearly need fixing. I've very sorry, but now that they've been identified, they'll have to be fixed within this context before this can close. I'm happy to leave it at the above list of issues, and if you're willing to fix them—I'm happy to help with the non-technical side of things—this will indeed be ready for closure as kept. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry BM, I didn't think your post was anything but GF. If you post the list I will be happy to address the issues - and have already started. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fix up The bones of this article are certainly GA class and I'm not seeing a reason to delist. However, the article does need a tidy up. Some suggestions for this are:

To review and simplify the material on fatigue-related issues in the "Development" section: this material is too complex, and is written in language which isn't accessible to the average reader. The unformated url references are also obviously problematic, but are easily fixed.
The lengthy quotes in the "A-10C" section aren't the best way of presenting this information
"Critics have said" - who are these critics?
"and the F-35's rising costs" - I believe that the costs are now going down Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These have been addressed or much improved upon. The costs text was adjusted to better match the source, which mainly compared the F-35's high cost to A-10's cost. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The intro's last paragraph needs more information on the future of the A-10, its been well established at this point that the plan insofar as the USAF is/was concerned is to replace the plane with the F-25, and its also been well established that there are several groups and many mission and financial related reasons as to why that move is seen as controversial. This should be touched on in all respects in the third intro paragraph (though I note that the entire debate over the matter should be covered to its fullest in its own section in the article). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor added a sentence to the last paragraph of the lead to better cover the replacement situation and contentious of this. Does that seem to cover it fairly and adequately? Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fnlayson, one problem I see there is that the potential end of life date given in the lead is 2028, and that's based on a 2007 source. A lot has occurred since then, including the wing-replacement program; the discussion about that program puts that (potential) ending date at 2035, and there's a comment from Boeing positing a 2040 date, though that's their opinion, not when the government might wind down the program. Can this be looked at, and the lead perhaps modified if appropriate? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the 2040 date is a very recent life estimate (early 2016) compared to the 2028 date. I changed to date in the Lead to list 2040 as that is the current estimate. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- is the section Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Operators needed in the article? This appears to be intricate detail and a WP:DIRECTORY of all units that use or have used the aircraft. I'm not sure what value it adds to the article. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fairly standard. A separate article could be justified though. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Operators section is not that long compared to other military aircraft articles I've worked on. I can give some examples including GA articles, if interested. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues still needing to be addressed

Per the earlier discussion with Maury Markowitz, here are the issues I believe still need to be addressed in the article to return it to GA status, a number of which I've mentioned in less detail above. (I've not incorporated ones mentioned by others above, which should also be taken care of if they haven't been already.)

Background

The Burton source at the end of the first sentence of paragraph 2 should include a page parameter. (This may need to split off from its other use at the beginning of Gulf War and Balkans, which may well use a different page from that same source.)

Upgrades

It's unfortunate that the opening sentence is identical to that of the fourth paragraph of source 42 (http://www.military.com/equipment/a-10-thunderbolt-ii), and the sentence after it deals with the same Pave Penny upgrade in similar words. The article phrasing needs to be revised.

Upgrades: HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program

first paragraph: I'd add a wikilink for Grumman Aerospace [Corporation]
third paragraph: Three plans were explored, replacing all the wings with new ones was the cheapest, costing $741 million to implement, and $1.72 billion over the life of the program. What were the three plans? Only one of them is mentioned, and if you're going to mention that there were three, say what they were. Also, what is involved in implementing vs. the life of the program that runs a billion bucks?
fourth paragraph: this is frankly a jumble of facts, snippets, and hype, and doesn't quite add up. The contract awarding sentence should state how many the initial order (out of an apparent max of 242 wing sets) came to. Was the max eventually reached? Was the contract revised to order still more wing sets, and when does it expire? It could be made more clear (if this is what happened) that the first two wing sets from the June 2007 order were installed and in use in November 2011. The sentence Re-winging improves mission readiness, decreases maintenance costs, and allows the A-10 to be operated up to 2035. reads as if it comes from a sales brochure or a briefing book, and needs a complete rewrite into encyclopedic prose, if it's still accurate (this is the only instance of a 2035 date). The sentence This was organized under the thick-skin urgent spares kitting (TUSK) program. has unclear antecedents: I'd move the TUSK info earlier, and state specifically when it started for the A-10 (and if it isn't A-10A specific, when the A-10A was added to it).

Upgrades: A-10C

Earlier, it said a total of 715 A-10As were delivered. In the first paragraph here, it says the entire fleet of A-10As was upgraded to A-10Cs, and the total upgraded was 125. The natural conclusion is that 590 A-10As had been removed from service (or were destroyed) by this point, since otherwise they would have become A-10Cs. However, this contradicts the Design section's Modernization subsection, which opens by stating that The A-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program will update 356 A-10/OA-10s to the A-10C variant. Which is the correct number?
At the end of the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, the inline source (44) is a bare URL. Please fix this.
The bulk of the second paragraph is a quote that needs to be paraphrased. (Is this talking about the IFFCC that was mentioned at the end of the first paragraph? I wasn't sure. And there's probably too much detail in the quote.)
To start the third paragraph, why not say that the two helmet systems were considered, with Raytheon getting the contract? As it is, the after-the-fact mention of HMCS is like reopening an already-closed subject. (Or don't mention the unsuccessful system at all.)
Later in that paragraph, a Suite 8 upgrade is mentioned for the first time, but as being continued. This is the first mention of any Suite. For context, it makes sense to mention that there have been several suites of software upgrades, and that the AF planned to discontinue them, but Suite 8 was ordered to continue. However, this is sourced to a blog; what makes this blog a reliable source? (I note with interest that it quotes a general who gives the number of A-10s as 340 as of early 2014, based on a Defense News article.)

Design: Modernization

The opening sentence uses future tense. I thought all of the A-10A to A-10C upgrades were completed years ago, which argues for past tense. Please make sure this uses the correct tense.

Operational history: Future

Fourth paragraph: the use of "will" in the Retirement has been deferred sentence is surprisingly definite for a plane where future plans seem to change with a certain regularity. And the sentence Retirement has been deferred until 2022 when F-35s will begin replacing it on a squadron-by-squadron basis doesn't agree with what source 128 says, which is that the "final retirement" would be in 2022 (all planes retired); source 129 similarly gives the retirement as happening between 2018 and 2022. However, this is the Air Force's budget proposal, and congress has proved resistant to retiring the A-10 as early as the AF wants; is this still true? (Has that 2017 budget even been passed yet?) Given the available sourcing, I don't see how you can reliably go beyond something along the lines of "the Air Force's latest budget proposal envisions replacing the A-10 with F-35s on a squadron-by-squadron basis, concluding with its full retirement in 2022".

That's what I've found that I believe needs updating for the article to be back at GA status. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working to fix or address the issues above. Either the 125 upgrade was wrong or incorrectly worded. Jane's states some 300 were upgraded. But I have been unable to find the actual date for completion of the PE upgrade program to add to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last PE upgrade was completed in 2011. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issues brought up by User:BlueMoonset above have largely been addressed now. But I am going back through the article to verify. Any help is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beleive the issues brought up here have been fixed or addressed now. Please close this months long review. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, I intend to close this review as "keep" as it appears that the issues raised have been dealt with. @BlueMoonset: can you please let me know if you are happy that your concerns have been addressed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - AustralianRupert, thanks for asking. I just checked through all the sections of my review, and a number of issues have not yet been dealt with, so I would not be happy with this being closed until they are either fixed or a reasonable explanation of why they do not need to be is proffered. In particular:
    - Upgrades: HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program: none of the comments regarding the problematic fourth paragraph appear to have been addressed, and I was unusually blunt in my assessment of the issues I found. This clearly needs work, and is far from the GA "clear and concise" standard.
    - Upgrades: A-10C: source 44 remains a bare URL and still needs fixing; now that the old second paragraph has been removed, the Suite 8 issues in what is the new second paragraph still remain, and the prose needs a bit of work as well. This new paragraph seems to be a combination of three projects that do not go together at all well. I'm still wondering how we get from software (Suite 8) to a removing a pylon that had housed Pave Penny (hardware).
    - Operational history: Future: while the fourth paragraph has changed "will" to "are to", which is an improvement, my point about the sources saying that the retirement was scheduled to take place between 2018 and 2022 seems to have been ignored, and it still says that the retirement is to begin in 2022. Either some new sources are needed if events have overtaken the old ones, or the article needs to better reflect its existing source material.

Until these are addressed, I don't see how this review can come to a valid "keep" conclusion and close. I'd love for this reassessment to be done, but we're not there yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the update. I will be going away on holidays as of about 36 hours from now, so if the issues aren't dealt with by then, I will just come back and review sometime around 31 Dec or so and see where we are at. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz, Nick-D, Iazyges, Sturmvogel 66, and Peacemaker67: Pinging a bunch of editors who have either commented here, or who have experience with aircraft articles. This review has been dragging on for quite awhile. Is anyone able to address these final points? I'd help if I could, but frankly box kites confuse me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a crack at trying to address the issues, but doubt I was successful. Please feel free to revert if my changes aren't helpful. These are my edits: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a crack as well. I believe I improved the portion to do with the wing procurement, information was a little confusing but I think I figured it out. Boeing was awarded a contract for X wings, with options up to Y. The reason the wings were ordered was so they wouldn't need to expand the SLEP program. I am not 100% sure if that means every wing has been refurbished, therefore the program doesn't need to exist anymore? That would be my guess, but I never saw it explicitly written out. Let me know if I am reading these articles wrong, I added a new source that clarified the options better. Kees08 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What else specifically needs fixed and looked at? Can we get a checklist going below? Kees08 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The issues pointed by BlueMoonset just above have been worked and seem to be addressed now. This seems like beating a dead horse, at least to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is somewhat of a small thing...but I have no idea what "loiter time" is. I think I know, but am not certain and the concept sure seems to be important regarding the development of this aircraft and so is part of why this aircraft is notable. But the term is not defined or Wikilinked and I am thinking I might not be the only reader who wouldn't know - so a defitnion or note or Wikilink should be added. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The general term Loitering seems common, but the Loiter (aeronautics) link was added to be sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all the issues I and others have raised seem to have been addressed. I don't see that there's any reason to keep this reassessment open unless further issues are noted. We need an uninvolved editor to evaluate whether this is ready to be closed; pinging Wizardman to see whether he'd be willing to be that potential closer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]