Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash edit

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Socrates2008 (Talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it's an interesting one with a number of different sub-threads in it that continue to make the news 40 years later. It passed GA easily, but failed to make FA due to some concerns about its scope (now addressed), so I believe it's good enough to be promoted. Thank you Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an excellent article which meets the A-class criteria. I have a few suggestions for further development which you may wish to consider:
- The purpose of the 'hard head' patrols is a bit obscure; am I correct in reading the article to mean that the purpose of these missions was to keep an eye on Thule in case it was attacked as the first part of a nuclear strike? (eg, so that the US military didn't mistake a communications failure for an attack and vice-versa)

You've got it in one - any suggestions how to make this more clear?

Maybe something like "From 1961, B-52 bombers also flew secret "Hard Head" missions over Thule Air Base. During these missions bombers maintained visual contact with the Thule so that a communications failure would not be misinterpreted as a nuclear first strike on base's strategically important Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS). Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you have the names of the bomber's crew? - it would be good to identify them rather then just labeling them 'the gunner' and 'the navigator'

Done

- 'The Pentagon stated' is vague: it's the world's biggest office building. It would be better to identify whichever part of the US military or Department of Defence issued this statement

Done

- 'Commentators postulated' - which commentators? Did anyone refute these claims? (which seem rather extraordinary; it's highly unlikely that the US would have considered this alone to be a sign of a major nuclear attack given that it also had satellites and radar to detect incoming missiles and bombers)

Citation has the name - added inline in text too. Sagan dedicates quite a few pages in his book to this scenario.

- 'atomic scientists have speculated' - likewise, which ones?

In the citation, but added his name inline in the text anyway

- Is Project Iceworm really needed as a see also link? It doesn't have much directly to do with the topic of this article. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is - it indicates ambitions to host more nuclear weapons in Greenland, something that had considerable relevance in the subsequent Thulegate scandal. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it came up as part of the Thulegate scandal can it be worked into the article's prose? Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How're we looking now? Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - excellent work. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One minor point, this image doesn't provide the source to enable verification that it is, indeed, public domain. Otherwise, a well-written and organized article which appears to cover the subject thoroughly and with appropriate detail. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article with no problems worth mentioning. – Joe N 01:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - (this version)
- Reference formatting differences in refs 3-4 (date style, Time is/not italicized, article is/not italicized)
- Ref 20 should not be in all caps.
- Sagan in References says p. 180, the footnotes say 181-182.
- Aarkrog, Asker (January 1970). "Radio-Ecological Investigations". USAF Nuclear Safety (Danish Atomic Energy Commission).
  - page #?
- Are all of the references used in the footnotes?
- It would probably be worth it to subdivide the references section into books and magazines/newspapers...
- —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Also, why the weird division between the references section and footnotes? If you are going to put a majority of the web and print refs into the references section, why not shorten the entire footnotes section? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.