Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/B-52 Stratofortress/archive1

B-52 Stratofortress

A very good article, I've spent the last few days add/cleaning it up, referencing it, etc. Needs a review before I can put it up for FAC. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Very good article, overall. A few points to consider, though:

The lead could stand to be a bit longer.
Horizontally-stacked images (e.g. those in the "Design and development" section) tend to cause layout problems on small resolutions; I'd advise against using them.
- Done Moved to vertical. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some convention re: aircraft that all designations should be bolded? If not, the bolding in "Design and development" is rather excessive.
- Done Removed the bolding on the sub-models, left a few for very important versions.. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The explicit placement of the footnote at the start of the "Variants" section is forced; I'd just move it to the "The B-52 went through several design changes and variants over it's 10 years of production" sentence instead.
- Done - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using definition tags (e.g. ; NB-52A : The last B-52A (serial 52-0003) was modified and redesignated NB-52A in...) rather than sub-sections for the individual variants may be neater, given how short they are.
- The sections were added here by User:LanceBarber citing that "because I have referenced these sub-sections with pipe construct in numerous other articles", I'm not sure if they should remain in deference to that, or that removing them is the best thing to do. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs)
  - If you need to retain the link anchors, you can just use a span; e.g. ; NB-52A : <span id="NB-52A"></span>The last.... Kirill 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - AHA!!! Done - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "USAF Stations" and "Surviving B-52s on static display" sections are too short. If they can't be made more substantial, I'd suggest integrating their content into the main body of the text, either as a floated box (as in, e.g. War of the Grand Alliance) or directly in the prose.
- Done - merged sections into article - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The external links are excessive, considering that we have actual articles for, say the Fairchild AFB crash, which should be linked instead.
- Done - removing some unneccessary or repeated links - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the great work! Kirill 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Done and Done ;)[reply]

JKBrooks85

Fantastic article! I've only got two questions/suggestions, and both are stylistic:

The design section of the article is a little long. Some subheadings might break up the text a little bit and make it easier to read and access for readers interested in only a portion of the design history.
The B-52 has a fairly rich history in fiction... would it be appropriate to create a "B-52 in fiction" section? There's certainly enough films, books, and television shows for a separate article, so if you do go down the route of creating a fiction section, I'd suggest creating a separate article with room for a full list. A brief coverage of B-52 fiction would be all that's needed in your article. I don't think it's absolutely needed, but it's something that I've seen a lot of similar articles have.

Keep up the good work! JKBrooks85 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at adding 1 or 2 subsections to the development. The "in fiction" section maybe harder. There is some info that can be used from the B-52 Stratofortress trivia page, but we don't want the new section to become a trivia section. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a trivia page for the B-52. Thanks for pointing it out! JKBrooks85 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose

Yes, really good article - well done Trevor and other editors. My only comments:

The first two paras look titchy. FA intros are commonly three paras, I'd do the same here. It might just take a bit of rearrangement of what you already have, in fact you could just combine the first two short ones for my money.
While it may not be a rule, I always think FAs look better without red links so you might consider creating ones for the Wright T-35 and North Star Bay - even stubs - or just lose the links for now.
Best to have a citation at the end of each para - para 2 of Design and development is missing that, for instance, and there are a few others.
Don't know whether you want to note that BUFF also stands for "Big Ugly Fat Fella" (in polite company). Can provide a citation for that in Bill Gunstan's Modern Military Aircraft if needed.
I'd combine the third and fourth short paras in Vietnam War. If you add that Linebacker took place "the following month" (from the loss on 22 Nov 72) or something similar then it follows quite naturally.
Wonder if a brief, parenthetical explanation of "mission capable" or "mission capable rate" would help the uninitiated.

That's it, keep up the good work! Cheers, Ian Rose 09:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]