Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/102nd Intelligence Wing/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

102nd Intelligence Wing

[edit]
Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has been vastly improved and I decided to re-nominate it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - does not meet the A-class criteria for referencing...(this version):
    • References needed all over.
      • 2nd para or "Origins"
      • 2nd, 3rd and 4th paras of "Berlin Crisis"
      • Last sentence of "Relocation to Otis"
      • "Conspiracy Link" section
        • First, per MoS, "link" should not be capitalized. Second, look at the para:

Many people who believe in a government conspiracy during the 9/11 attacks claim the government kept the jets from going to New York.[14] Although this is true because of Cold War policies, they claimed that NORAD purposely kept the planes there while the towers were struck. Pilot Daniel Nash said that he couldn't recall being told that the North Tower was hit but he did remember seeing the smoke over 70 miles away.[14] They also believe that using NORAD's calculations, the planes were going at 24% speed.[14] The planes probably flew faster but they could not go supersonic as they would've eventually flown over land, which is against FAA regulations. These regulations ban sonic booms from occuring near land. The exception is that the military is allowed to conduct supersonic flight within certain corridors, which are located in the western United States.

        • Sentences 2, 5, 6, and 7 all seem to be OR!
      • First para, second sentence of "BRAC 2005".
      • 2nd para of "BRAC 2005"
      • Last 3 paras of "New Mission" are uncited and have {{fact}} tags.
      • "Current" section needs refs and the sentence is confusing to me.
      • "Cold War" needs references.
      • Same with "Bases stationed"
    • What is Ref #13 referring too?
    • Ref 14 is a blog...

—Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Concerning the last paragraph of the 'Relocation to Otis', I don't understand why I need to reference something that is already referenced. Reference #13 is used in reference to the holding pattern on 9/11. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is lacking in references on sentences at the end of paragraphs, and in some cases entire paragraphs themselves, particularly near the end of the article. Also, is the ribbon image really necessary in the infobox, especially at that size? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • "Berlin Crisis links to a disambiguation, fix this and check to make sure there aren't any others please.
    • There should be a citation at least at the end of every paragraph, this is not the case at least once.
    • "From 1956 to 1976, the 102d was headed by Brigadier General Charles W. Sweeney, who piloted the B-29 Superfortress, which dropped the Fat Man atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan in 1945.[7]" This should be rephrased as it sounds awkward. Too many commas, I think. Also, Brigadeir General should be linked to the rank, whihc only Charles W. Sweeney should be linked to the article on him.
    • Watch linking terms too many times.
    • "Then Federal Aviation Administration contacted the North American Aerospace Defense Command's Northeast Air Defense Sector at Rome, New York, bypassing standard procedures." This sentence makes no sense. Please rephrase it.
    • "The planes probably flew faster but they could not go supersonic as they would've eventually flown over land, which is against FAA regulations. These regulations ban sonic booms from occurring near land" Again awkward, please rephrase.
    • "The plans hit a roadblock when it was announced that there were few funds left with which the wing could use to transition into its new mission.[17]" Few funds sounds awkward. Perhaps insert a synonym instead?
    • Please deal with the fact tags by citing them.
    • In the references please deal with the "page number needed" thing.

      Besides those, it looks OK, better than it was last time, but I think it might still need a little bit of work.Joe (Talk) 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/102nd_Intelligence_Wing/archive3&oldid=1090421580"