Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service/archive1

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 archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [1].

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service edit

Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the use of the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Hammersfan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Buidhe edit

Oppose: There are significant issues with sandwiching images (MOS:IMAGELOC) and unresolved ^{[unreliable source?]} tags, as well as apparently unsourced sections. Some sources look quite dubious, such as thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk which appears to be a self-published website. Some of the captions are 8+ lines and should probably be trimmed per MOS:CAPTION. Any captions that present information that is not immediately obvious should have a cited source to avoid original research. For example, "An F-4K of 892 Naval Air Squadron lines up alongside an F-4J of VF-101 Grim Reapers aboard USS Independence in 1975. This shows the extended nosewheel oleo of the British aircraft, fitted to increase the take-off attitude for operation on the Royal Navy's carriers." I will strike my oppose if these issues are resolved. b uidhe 03:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional citations added in sections indicated; some self-published sources replaced, while others (primarily the Thunder and Lightnings references) have been backed up with additional citations - this is because I believe the Thunder and Lightnings website provides a good summary; photo captions reduced in length; captions that are not merely stating what is in the image have been given citations; all images have been moved to the right hand side of the page where appropriate - only those that form galleries to show multiple images have been left centered. Please let me know if there are any further issues that need addressing. Hammersfan (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am still seeing questionable sources being used. I have checked the following sources and can't see why they are reliable:
  - This is not an exhaustive list... b uidhe 04:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The links that have been struck through have been replaced by alternative citations. Of the ones that remain:
      - UK Serials is an exhaustive database of the serial numbers of UK military aircraft that has been compiled from, amongst other resources, the Royal Air Force Museum, Fleet Air Arm Museum, Military Aircraft Photographs (a major company dealing in the sale of images of military aircraft, including the collection of the RAF Museum), and Robertson's British Military Aircraft Serials 1878-1987.
      - Ejection History is a database of military aircraft ejection incidents that has been used as a reference in a number of different publications, including, but not limited to, Civil Airworthiness Certification: Former Military High-Performance Aircraft (US Dept of Transportation, 2013); The Panavia Tornado: A Photographic Tribute (Pen & Sword, 2015); Canadian Warplanes (iUniverse, 2009); Problematic Wildlife: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach (Springer, 2015); The Man Who Flies With Birds (Kar-Ben Publishing, 2009).
      - www.thrustssc.com is the archived official website of the Thrust SSC project to build the world's first supersonic land vehicle, which used engines recycled from an RAF Phantom. The website is listed as such on the ThrustSSC page, and is copyrighted to the SSC Programme Ltd, the organisation responsible for the construction and operation of the ThrustSSC car.
      - The Phantom F-4K website has been retained alongside other citations as it is owned and operated by a former Royal Navy Phantom pilot, and provides good summaries for certain elements.
      - The hidden table containing the entire list of UK operated Phantoms, and thus all citations on it, has been removed.
    - Please let me know if there are any further issues that need addressing. Hammersfan (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Mark83 edit

A lot of work has gone into this but I believe there is a lot of work to do on two criteria which will take some time:

"1a well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" - not badly written but the prose needs work.
"1b"comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" - some confusing text.
A non-exhausive list of examples (from intro and first sections):
- "In the mid-1980s, a third Phantom variant was obtained when a quantity of" - How many?
- "At the time, the British aerospace industry was still a major source of equipment" - Still? Could suggest it isn't now which it is.
- "The 1957 Defence White Paper brought about a significant change in the working practices" - What "working practices"? The next paragraph goes on to talk about rationalisation. The two paragraphs should be condensed as it's the same point.
- RAF should be singular.
- " The development of TSR-2 saw increasing..." - should be "the TSR-2". We don't say the 'development of Tornado' for example. The paragraph and the next are inherently linked, which makes me feel they shouldn't be 2 different paragraphs.
- "The P.1154 was thus left as a wholly RAF project." - is redundant.
- Labour elected in 1964 and the defence review took 2 years? This isn't me pointing out and error, just a probing question that the text makes me think of.
- On cancellation of P.1154 and TSR-2, "As a consequence, the government was forced to order new aircraft". It wasn't forced, it would have been part of their decision making on cancellation. And the whole article to this point is about replacement of the Canberra, Hunter & Sea Vixen. This quote makes it sound like a "new" issue at this point of the article. The way it's written here it also treats the RAF requirement as primary.
- "Hawker Siddeley at Brough Aerodrome" was appointed "sister design firm" - was this a corporate entity? Surely it was HS that was the "sister design firm" and not 1 site?
- The next paragraph then discusses BAC's redesign - which is it? HS or the parent?
- Intro says assembled in US but this paragraph says rear fuselage built in UK. Were these shipped to US? Just needs explained.
- "Because the government then had a policy of negotiating fixed-price contracts, these costs could not be evened out by a large production run, which left the total order at 170" - don't understand why a fixed-price contract excludes the possibility of savings from a large production run?
- British Aerospace is described as doing work in 1969 and 1970, 7+ years before its creation.
- The loss of one of the pre-production examples in 1978 is irrelevant in the context of prototype testing (subject of the paragraph).
- "The British Government ordered ~~a total of~~ four prototypes "
- Run-on sentence: " The two pre-production F-4K aircraft were constructed alongside the prototypes, and were initially used for fit check trials of the various systems to be fitted – the first was used for catapult/arrestor and deck landing trials, and the second was primarily for testing the radar and missile systems."
- Repetition: " These were procured to replace the Sea Vixen then in service in the role,"
- Intention to build four brand new or modernised carriers, rebuild Eagle and Ark Royal, and two new aircraft carriers - I don't understand from the text if these are the same, related, or entirely distinct initiatives. Mark83 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- " In turn, when the Phantom was replaced, its major roles required three separate aircraft (see table)" - is bordering on original research. It's asking the reader to make an inference on the capabilities of the aircraft from what aircraft replaced it without any kind of verifiable analysis or context. Mark83 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I respectfully suggest that this nomination is withdrawn. I believe there is too much work to do to reasonably expect the FA criteria to be met in the near future. I find the article interesting and would be willing to assist. In the meantime, some more examples to explain my concerns:

Inconsistencies in McDonnell/McDonnell Douglas. First instances not linked. And " first flew on 27 June 1966 at the McDonnell Douglas plant" isn't possible as McDonnell Aircraft didn't merge with Douglas until the following year.
Repetition of 140 aircraft order for RN.
"The rest of the aircraft would be a reserve and for training" I know what that means but it doesn't read well.
Aircraft don't embark in a carrier, but on a carrier?
A&AEE abbreviated on second instance, not first.
Discussion of Ark Royal refit in two places - this should be merged.
British English for this article? Then modernization > modernisation
Phasing out > phasing-out
Repetition of 20 aircraft from RN > RAF
Run-on sentences, e.g. "At the time, the RAF's primary interceptor was the English Electric Lightning, which suffered badly both in terms of range, loiter time and weapons fit, all of which hampered its effectiveness, especially in long interceptions of Soviet Air Forces and Soviet Naval Aviation bombers and reconnaissance aircraft over the North Sea and North Atlantic."
"could thus fly further for longer" > had better endurance (or similar tighter language)
In F-4M Phantom FGR.2#Close air support the article goes back to Hunter replacement. Has this not been covered?
Massive overuse of semi-colons throughout.
The use of the Spey engine is repeated.
F-111 overlinked.
The comparison table between RN and USN carrier needs to go. The point is made without this.
I bumped on the comparison tables with the other aircraft.
Images for images sake? e.g. the F-4M Phantom FGR.2 - 1 image in infobox, 2 in-line, and 3 in gallery.
Are there too many mentions of individual squadron history? This is covered in "Operators" and "Phantom locations" and "Aircraft replaced by and replacing the Phantom" as well as in the main body text.

There are issues in between, but the Replacement section has a lot of issues, e.g.

Contradictions between MRCA (Tornado) not being developed as an interceptor, and then in fact being developed thus.
ADV needs explained to readers.
"Eventually, the Tornado accounted for the two FG.1 squadrons at RAF Leuchars" -- Doesn't make sense.
"In the Royal Navy at the same time, the withdrawal of the conventional aircraft carrier was envisaged to see the end of fixed-wing aviation at sea." -- Doesn't make sense.
"Because of this policy, 892 Naval Air Squadron used a black capital Omega (Ω) letter on the tailfins of their aircraft, as it was believed they would be the final fixed-wing squadron to be commissioned." -- what does this mean? what is the relevance?

Mark83 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I am content to remove elements Mark83 - the galleries could well be described as superfluous, while each variant's list of operators could be transposed into the list of locations, and if necessary the comparison table of the two carriers (although I still feel that information is relevant) - if the vast majority of objection is due to the prose and style of the writing, rather than the actual content, I don't feel that I am able to undertake any more work on it. Having written the vast majority of it, I don't feel that I am objective enough in my own reading of the text to be able to alter it in such a way that you may find meets the standard. If you would like to undertake to collaborate I am happy for you to contact me directly. Two things I would like to point out:

- - F-111 is not overlinked; the links go to two separate articles - General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark and General Dynamics F-111K
  - Aircraft squadrons can embark in aircraft carriers, as evidenced from the text here and here

Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss collaborating. Hammersfan (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the call for withdrawal, these issues appear to be substantial and are likely best addressed outside of FAC. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Once content and sourcing issues have been fixed, WP:GOCE is very helpful for fixing prose. (t · c) buidhe 12:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.