Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Republic F-84 Thunderjet

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 still meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Republic F-84 Thunderjet

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

A reassessment nomination. A 2006 a-class promotion that contains substantial uncited text; would likely be assessed as a start-class or c-class today. Original nominator has not edited since 2014. Hog Farm _Talk 15:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no better than start or maybe (very generously) C class (t · c) buidhe 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do to try and provide some cites for the uncited bits - and to provide where possible more useful cites rather than citing the whole book - help would be helpful of course - does anyone have a link to the original A-class review?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: - It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Republic F-84 Thunderjet/archive1. (I unfortunately do not have any relevant sources myself). Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the MilHist and Aircraft projects. Hopefully this will bring more help.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Most of the sourcing issues on the main "Design and development" and "Operational history" sections should be fixable as long as enough effort is put in, although page numbers for "McLaren 19982 would be helpful - similarly, the "Variants" section should be fixable. The "Operators " section is a bit of a mess as it seems to be trying to cover all F-84s, not just the straight-wing Thunderjets that are the subject of the article - this should either be trimmed back to just cover Thunderjets or split off to cover all F-84s, leaving a summary and redirect design. The "Aircraft on display" section seems to be badly sourced (with both unsourced entries and entries with non-RS sourcing) - some thought is needed for this section.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now worked through the history, versions and operators sections - leaving the detailed lists of USAF operators and Netherlands aircraft as the fixed and swept wing variants need to be de-picked. I would like to ask what's the best way forward for the Surviving aircraft section if anyone can be bothered to comment.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be best to scrap the section about display aircraft? It looks like it would be difficult to verify all of the entries, and near-impossible to get any kind of completeness. Hog Farm _Talk 14:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of section is part of the normal format for aircraft articles - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and it is something that you do often see in monographs on aircraft types - note that the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - a featured article, splits the aircraft on display into a separate article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This F-84 article lacks citations in many places after the Korean War section, especially variant and on display list entries. Good progress needs to be made on this soon or delist it, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Took a quick scroll through of text. Especially noticeable to me was the Surviving aircraft section. It not only lacks cites, it seems bent on listing every surviving F84 in existence. How many times do you have to see the same airplane with a different background?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted above, I'm not convinced we even need to have that section. Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that this article actually has an Aircraft on display section which is more limiting than a Surviving aircraft section. Several entries are not sourced and entries have some repeated links which are being removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nigel Ish: - it looks like the on display aircraft and the variants are now where the main work is needed. Any thoughts on this? Hog Farm _Talk 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I've fixed the remaining cn tags in the variants section - I think it's probably better to move the On display section to a daughter article - otherwise people will just re-add it with similarly dubious sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Now moved to a separate article - Republic F-84 Thunderjets on display.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nigel Ish: - I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll try to get to this next week. Looks like the uncited text has been resolved except for a few stray things in the operators section. Hog Farm _Talk 22:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think " "USAF Losses in Korea". www.alternatewars.com. Archived from the original on 29 February 2020. Retrieved 6 March 2020." is RS but beyond that this is looking pretty much ready to keep. I'll see when I can chip in a prose read-through but don't know what that'll be for sure. Hog Farm _Talk 18:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be an extract/summary from [1] United States Air Force Statistical Digest Fiscal Year 1953 (and in particular Table 10 - pp. 26–29), which is a US Government document - while an old primary source, the statistical digest probably counts as a WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, okay. So we can verify where the website (which doesn't seem particularly authoritative on its face) is getting that information. Would it be possible to cite directly to the old USAF document instead? Hog Farm _Talk 20:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done and corrected.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

Am just working through improving minor things initially. A few queries:

are there links for the 127th Fighter Day Wing, 127th Fighter Escort Wing, 127th Strategic Fighter Wing? Are these lineage wing names for the 127th Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard? Perhaps Lineagegeek knows? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
were all the wings listed at the bottom of the Design and development section part of Strategic Air Command, or just a few of the latter ones? At present it isn't clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Willis there was a 127th Fighter Squadron which was part of the ANG - but based at Wichita (which would suggest the Kansas ANG rather than Michigan?), which was activated to join the 137th Fighter Bomber Wing of TAC. Willis doesn't mention the various 127th Wings. Of the ones list in the last paragraph of the Design and development section, all bar the 127th were SAC units.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the paragraph in question actually adds much to the article - why mention SAC units (and not all the SAC units) in the design and development section? I'm tempted to remove it.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of bizarre. 127th Wing redirects to Michigan Air National Guard and 127th Fighter-Bomber Wing redirects to an unrelated unit. No page on the wing itself. However, the 127th Wing has been a fighter wing, but it never had any of the three designations listed in the article. The wings listed (except for the 127th) were all SAC units. However, there were ADC units, TAC units, USAFE units, PACAF units, ANG units and reserve units that flew the straight wing version of the F-84. These were not the first operational units to fly the F-84, the 14th Fighter Group (ADC) was Knaack with F-84Bs, the 20th Fighter Group (TAC) was the first to equip with the F-84C. I agree with Nigel Ish that this doesn't belong in the development section. It also implies that wings that were not even around until 1953 were flying the Hog in 1948 (407th, 506th). --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage of US aviation units of all their armed forces seems a bit crazy and coverage on Wikipedia is inconsistent - the 127th FBW article actuallly covers the 127th Fighter Squadron - which is the one that was/is part of the Kansas ANG - there does appear to have been a separate 127th Wing which at some stage became page of the Michigan ANG, possibly as some sort of umbrella wing for the 107th Squadron - wether it has anything to do with the F-84 is another question.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Possibly a list of USAF units that flew the F-84 is warranted under Operators, but not here. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V2 is over technical, I have piped it to "takeoff safety speed". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need page numbers for McLaren. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For that it needs someone with access to McLaren - I have asked on Wp:Military History. Otherwise, if we want cites with that degree of accuracy, it is replace where possible and remove where not.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping everyone here buidhe, Nigel Ish, Peacemaker67, @WP:MILHIST coordinators: . Hi everyone I took a two-month break because of my exams and back then this was nominated though this nomination was back then dead for already two months. Now I'm back I want to finish this so that we have a small clean-up with our ARCs. Can we please have a look into this? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to RL stuff, I don't think I'll be able to follow up here until March 2 at the earliest, and it'll probably be a few days after that so I can catch up on more urgent things. Hog Farm _Talk 22:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only outstanding stuff is the missing page numbers from McLaren. Can anyone spot anything else that needs to be done?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning to follow up, all I can say is that the article is not what it was when I last commented, so please disregard my comment. (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 24 February 2023 (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.