Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 18 May 2009 [1].

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash edit

Nominator(s): Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's an interesting one with a number of sub-topics that continue to make the news today. It's undergone significant work since being nominated for FAC a month ago, and has recently passed an A-Class review of the military history project. Lastly, all the concerns raised during the last FAC review have been addressed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by NuclearWarfare (All issues addressed NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

All done, thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Thule Air Base aerial view.jpg still does not have an accessible source. I did a quick sweep of the others. Those look good. I'll do a recheck when I have time in a few hours. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 18:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not used in the article anymore... Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A source has been added today and this link works fine for me. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article which meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments — Nice to see this article again, and it's especially nice to see all the improvements you've made. This version is a lot better and answers many of the questions I had last time. I still have a few comments and questions for you, though.
  • Could you put March 2009 with the Time reference in the lede?
  • I'd suggest giving at least a sentence or two of explanation for the Palomares crash at first reference, even with the link. Not a big deal if you don't think it's necessary, though.
  • Did the 1961 North Carolina crash affect procedures at all prior to this?
  • There shouldn't be an apostrophe in "rheostat's" ... it's plural, not possessive.
  • I also assume that we're talking about rheostats controlling cabin heat ... you might want to state that if it's the case.
  • Was the engine heat bleed vented through the heating system? It's implied that it was, since the cushions on the heating vent caught fire, but I don't want to assume that.
  • The first sentence in Project Crested Ice is in passive voice; I'd suggest changing it to something like "The crash scattered debris over a 1-mile (1.6 km) by 3-mile (4.8 km) area, and some material was completely destroyed by fire."
  • Why was there pressure to complete the project by spring?
  • The fourth paragraph, first sentence, second clause of "Crested Ice" is in passive voice.
  • In the fifth paragraph of "Crested Ice", who was making these decisions?
  • The sentence "a decision had been taken to send a Star III mini-submarine to the base to look for the lost bomb" needs to be taken out of passive voice and past perfect tense. Instead, say something like "Gen. XXX ordered a Star III mini-submarine to the base to look for the lost bomb".
  • Under "Thulegate", who decided to not allow nuclear weapons onto Danish soil? Unless the country hosted a plebiscite on the issue, you shouldn't say "it" made the decision; it's the prime minister or someone like that who makes that move.
  • As of November 2008, the workers' compensation case has been unsuccessful -- has there been any progress since then?
  • When in 2009 will the land report be released? Both of the sources are in Danish, and I don't speak it, I'm afraid. :)

You've come a long way on this article, and I look forward to seeing where you take it. When I get a chance, I'll dig into the article myself and lend a hand. Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this feedback. For each of your points above:
  • Date added to Time article
  • Expanded details of the Palomares incident and added a reference
  • No documented information about the North Carolina case. Unlike Thule and Palomares, fewer documents have been declassified.
  • "rheostat's" is correct - there's one and the apostrophe indicates singular possessive case.
  • Added explicit link between the rheostat and the heater
  • Added explicit link between the bleed value and the cabin heater
  • Changed to active voice
  • Spelled out why the contaminated ice melting in the spring was an issue
  • Changed to active voice
  • Added decision makers and made active voice
  • Added decision makers and made active voice
  • Expanded info about who in Denmark made the decision
  • No information about any progress since Nov 2008
  • The press release is not any more specific than 2009
Thank you again! Socrates2008 (Talk)
  • More comments: I spent a bit of time going through the article tonight and made a few changes. Please look them over and let me know if I've gotten something wrong. I haven't finished, but you've spent more time researching the subject, so I yield to your judgment. I've got a few more questions in regards to some of the items:
Thank you - fixed a few errors introduced during this edit, and tweaked some terminology that I felt did not work.
  • I reworded the section about McNamara's reduction in the Chrome Dome missions; based on the source, it appears that one of the four bombers allowed for live training was assigned to the Thule mission. I've brought that fact out in the article, but if it's contradicted by another source, let me know.
No problems with this other than the passive voice, which I've changed
  • "Instructor navigator" isn't defined when it's used. That position should be defined either here or in a stub. Is it the primary navigator? I don't know what it is.
It's a qualification - someone who is qualified to instruct other navigators; I thought the term would be self-explanatory?
  • In regard to the rheostat, what is it possessing? I'm missing this.
Not my wording - see below.
  • The weapons involved are B28FI model hydrogen bombs, but there's a picture of four Mk 28s used in the article. Would it be better to use the picture of the B28FI used in that article?
Same thing (see the "28" in B28FI) - renamed the caption for consistency
  • It's stated that "off-duty staff were recalled to the base" ... I didn't think there was anything other than the base. Would it be better to say that they were called back to work?
Changed to "mustered"
  • Can we wikilink or explain "shroud lines" for people who don't know what those are?
Done
I'll be back when I wake up. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the possessive rheostat, consider it by rewording to replace the item with yourself. You wouldn't say, "me being turned up," but, "my being turned up." Hence, "rheostat's". It is grammatically correct, though granted, it does sound a little odd. The effect could be avoided by rewording to avoid the possessive, or perhaps merely lessened by saying, "the rheostat's having been..." or similar. Steve T • C 12:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not my wording, but a tweak by another editor during the previous FAC. Will look at changing it, as it's been bugging me too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it was me. :) Looking at it now, with some distance, I definitely agree it should be reworded, despite its being correct. Steve T • C 12:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I've read through the article twice now, you've addressed every change I suggested, and I'm more than happy to give my support now. It's reaching the point where I can't make a judgment about how understandable this is to an outsider, though, so I'm sure other folks will have comments on that. I believe this article is complete, understandable, and neglects no information about the incident. I encourage other editors to read, review, and offer their support of it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently reviewing this, and giving a minor copyedit, but to give you time to respond before I comment further, I thought I'd tell you that the reference "European Parliament, 2009" (used in the Workers' compensation claims section), doesn't seem to appear in the references section. Steve T • C 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last question for now: the "Further reading" section may imply that sources are present that haven't been mined for useful information. The presence of Broken Arrow - The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents doesn't bother me; we determined during the first FAC that while the writers of the book have military experience and seemed to have thoroughly researched their book, it was best not to cite it due to issues over the reliability of their publisher. So I'm fine with its inclusion in the FR section, but does the other item, the "Draft Union Parliament Resolution" provide anything of significance that the article doesn't cover (but should)? If so, that information should be included. If not, it would be more appropriate in the "External links" section. Steve T • C 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the European Parliament link as the case brought before them is already covered by 2 other refs. BTW, the "Broken Arrow" book has quoted verbatim from the 1968 USAF Journal of Nuclear Safety, which we have as a reference already. Thank you again for all the effort put into copyediting. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At the first FAC I reviewed this pretty thoroughly; the nominator resolved my concerns swiftly and with good grace, and by the end my only issue (save for a few minor MOS and grammar fixes) was with the article's scope. I'm pleased to see that since then the nominator has heeded the recommendations; the article provides a more informative context to the crash, and with the size increased by almost half in the last six weeks, it paints a comprehensive picture of each aspect. The prose is good, the images seem to check out, and the sources are reliable. Nice work, Steve T • C 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash/archive2&oldid=1144462540"