Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

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.
Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior nomination here.

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I'd like to see this article go through to FAC. It had already gone through an unsuccessful ACR and FAC before, and I think it is the right time to give the article another go at ACR. My aim (obviously) of this nomination is to raise the article's quality to FA. --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcey stuff Fifelfoo (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chapter title, Chapter author? Eden, Paul, ed (2004). The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft.
      • Added chapter. No authors were provided to any of the chapters.
    • There was recently a warning regarding FACs and small or speciality presses. Are any of the sources you're reliant upon published by non-commercial (hobbyist, consider "Osprey" as an example of a commercial press), or self-publishing presses? If so, what strategies have you used regarding these texts?
      • I would hardly consider Specialty Press to be a small press, because it has published hundreds of detailed books on many subjects.
    • Miscited, see internal characteristics of the cached copy on google, also consider archiving—I can't access the original (also Characteristics misspelt?): "Standard Aircraft Charateristics: Navy Model AV-8B Harrier II Aircraft" (PDF). US Navy.
    • Appears to be a magazine, cite as such: Adams, Charlotte (14 December 1997). "Voice-recognition technology: Waiting to exhale". Federal Computer Week.
    • Again, poorly cited, see internal characteristics of cached,—protip: institutions can be authors too, document titles aren't the publisher, the lowest institutional unit claiming responsibility is normally the author / publisher respectively "Navy Model: AV-8B Harrier II Aircraft" (PDF). Naval Air Systems Command. October 1986.
    • What makes this military industrial lobby group reliable, especially when they have no named editor? "AV-8B Harrier". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
    • There's a date, author, and small unit identification on this one: "USS Peleliu (LHA 5) Operation Enduring Freedom". US Navy. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
    • There's an author: From Joint Force Maritime Component Commanders Odyssey Dawn Public Affairs: "Navy, Marine Corps Aircraft Strike Libya" (Press release). US Navy. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 19 July 2011.
    • NOCAPS: "FARNBOROUGH
      • Done.

Oppose at this stage:

  • I've worked through a fair bit of this - the major issues for me are the amount of technical language in the text. I've given some examples below - the key for improving this carefully researched article for me would be to put yourself in the position of a non-technical reader. Imagine you don't know anything about planes; perhaps you've been on an passenger jet, but that's about it. Could you read through most of the article and understand it without clicking multiple links? I've given some examples below, along with some minor typo points etc.:
  • The lead would require the unfamiliar reader to click on a lot of links; " vertical/short takeoff and landing ", for example, appears in the first sentence - if you didn't know that this means the aircraft is able to able to take-off or land vertically or to use short runways, you'd have to click on the link. I'd advise seeing if some of these terms could be expanded out to help the non-specialist reader.
  • "Since mergers in the 1990s," - you'll want to clarify these mean corporate mergers, not project mergers.
    • Done.
  • " The aircraft took part in combat in Iraq again during the Iraq War beginning in 2003" - repetition of Iraq.
    • Done.
  • "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the first-generation Harriers entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC), it became increasingly apparent that they were handicapped in range and payload, and in 1973 Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas began joint development of a more capable version of the Harrier." - a very long sentence, worth splitting in two.
    • Done.
  • "A joint American and British team completed a document defining an Advanced Harrier with the Pegasus 15 engine in December 1973." - "Defining" is used in a specialist manner here, worth finding an alternative term.
    • How is defining is used in a specialist manner?
A project definition (which is what this is referring to, I think) means describing a user requirement and characteristics (e.g. an aircraft able to do x, y and z). For most, a "definition" is a description of what a word means. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main source for this (Jenkins, p. 69) calls it "project definition document". So I think you need a better reason for changing the word. Handled -Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Advanced Harrier was unofficially named "AV-16", with the aim of doubling the AV-8's payload and range capabilities." - I don't think it was was unofficially named this in order to double the AV-8's payload; rather, because they aimed to double the capabilities, they named it the AV-16.
    • Done. Good point.
  • "The British government pulled out of the project in March 1975 due to decreased defense funding, rising costs, and a small 60-aircraft order by the RAF." -Who did they order 60 aircraft from?
    • It was originally requirement, but someone wanted me to change it to order. Reverted. --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the baseline structure " - what's a baseline structure in this context?
    • Changed to basic structure.
  • "In 1981, the DoD included the Harrier II in its annual budget and five-year defense plan, after attempts within the DoD and United States Navy (USN) to terminate the program between 1978 and 1980." - I'd reverse the sentence, starting in 1978 and moving forward to 1981.
    • No would not do that, because it would not make sense to the reader. If I changed it, it would mean the DoD included the Harrier II in its annual budget as a result of attempts by the USN and people within DoD to terminate it, which is incorrect. --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking more of "There were attempts within the DoD and United States Navy (USN) to terminate the program between 1978 and 1980, but in 1981 the DoD included the Harrier II in its annual budget and five-year defense plan." Hchc2009 (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "40%" - under MOS, should be "40 percent"
    • Done.
  • " the new design be verified with flight hardware" - I don't know what this means
    • "be practically verified with flight hardware" If you've read the next sentence, the sentence would be clearer what "flight hardware" meant. --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be difficult, but "flight hardware" remains unclear: the later sentences suggest it involves wings and engines, but this isn't a common phrase; I'm used to "hardware" versus "software" in my day job, to be honest. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it sure looked that way. That part been reworded some more.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the modified forward fuselage and cockpit were not incorporated" - I might have missed it, but have these been mentioned previously?
    • No.
  • If we're talking about "the" something, it implies its already been mentioned. If you put "a", it would imply it wasn't already mentioned.Hchc2009 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "greater than expected drag," - again, "drag" is a term that new readers may not be familiar with.

© 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This bit of the discussion is at User talk:Hchc2009#Comments at AV-8B ACR btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the use of a digital cockpit instead of the analog cockpit" - again, worth explaining what both of these are
  • "72 rebuilt aircraft" - rebuilt from what?
  • " eight examples" - does example have a specialist meaning here? (e.g. a test aircraft, or a trial aircraft?)
    • Changed to aircraft.
  • " horizontal stabilizers" - what are these?
    • Linked.
  • "prominent anhedral" - linked, I know, but few readers will know what these are, or be able to guess by context - worth explaining in the main text
  • No, someone will complain that it is UNDUE.
  • "four synchronized vectorable nozzles (two cold forward, two hot aft)" - ditto, would be worth helping the novice reader here
    • The latter section has been copy-edited. I would've thought that the front section can be figured out with common sense; in any case, I don't know how to explain it.
  • "one centerline and six wing hardpoints" - centerline can be guessed by context (along the centre of the plane?) but could be explained
  • Sorry, if I add all these definitions, someone will complain about its being intricate and undue.
  • " two fuselage stations" -what's a fuselage station?
  • Changed.
  • "by delaying drag rise " - what's drag rise?
  • A rise in drag.
  • "automatic maneuvering flaps and drooped ailerons" - what's an automatic maneuvering flap?
  • "leading-edge root extension " - again, linked, but not likely to be familiar to most readers so worth explaining in main text
  • Explained -- please check.
  • " the outriggers were moved from the wingtip to mid-span for a tighter turning radius when taxiing." What's an outrigger?
  • Explained.
  • " hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) control principle, and deliberately engineered lateral stability make the aircraft fundamentally easier to fly" - but not necessarily to read; many will be wondering why the pilot's hands aren't on the stick to start with, and what lateral stability is, and why you wouldn't wish to deliberately engineer it in the first place! :)
  • Please, you're not reading the HOTAS article, where all the explanations are supposed to be.
  • "The pilots sit on UPC/Stencel 10B zero-zero ejection seats, meaning that they are able to eject in a stationary aircraft at zero altitude" - not clear to me (as a non-pilot) why a pilot would wish to be able to eject from the ground from a stationary aircraft (might be worth a footnote).
  • " early trialling of Direct Voice Input (DVI) " - not sure what this is.
  • Explained.
  • "to accommodate the second cockpit" - what second cockpit?
  • The TAV-8B is a derivative of the AV-8B and has two cockpits, instead of one.
  • " increases in chord and height." I've no idea what a chord is in this context.
  • Added "(length of the wing's root)" -- please check.
  • "this is effective after sunset when the objects' rates of cooling are different" - different from what? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.

Comments

  • McDonnell Douglas' facilities in Missouri spanned multiple cities/unincorporated areas in the St. Louis metro area, but none of them were in 'St. Louis'. I recall the AV8B production building was Berkeley, Missouri but a lot of the other manufacturing buildings were in Hazelwood, Missouri; you probably could find the address. Do all your sources have St. Louis as the location? An easy fix is to replace 'St. Louis' with 'Missouri'. Kirk (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources list "St. Louis" if they mention the location. The main facilities are at St. Louis' Lambert airport, which is actually outside of the city limits. No need to be so precise here though, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand you are citing sources, but they are wrong and I don't think we should propagate wrong information in A/FA articles. Some suggestions: for something that specifies the facility the first time i.e. Aircraft production would occur at McDonnell Douglas' facilities in St. Louis, Missouri... I would say suburban St. Louis... then later I would not specify the location, i.e. St. Louis production line Engineers at St. Louis I would omit St. Louis. If you list multiple locations, McDonnell Douglas' St. Louis plant, CASA's facility in Seville, Spain, and Alenia's production plant in Turin, Italy. I recommend Missouri. You should also be careful about mixing 'plant' and 'facility' in one sentence.
The discussion above is closed. 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/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II/archive2&oldid=574550756"