Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Helicopter 66

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.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Helicopter 66 edit

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk)

Featured article candidates/Helicopter 66/archive1

I hesitate to nominate this for A class review because it's a bit shorter than most here. That said, I would caveat that with the fact that this article is about a single helicopter that had a 6.5 year service history (with a notable service history of only 16 months) and a crew of four. Obviously this is unlike a battleship which might have a 30-year service life and a crew of a thousand or more so - despite 66's historical importance - there was simply never an equivalent amount of history created about which to write and I believe this article is a holistic and thorough representation of all information publicly available.

The article has just been passed to GA. I've also archived every online reference in the article to Perma.cc and added Alt tags to all images. Chetsford (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi edit

Helicopter US Navy 66. Meisel GmbH. 1969. p. 148. ISBN 9783841836465. Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lingzhi. I'm not sure what happened there; I've swapped out the source, though. Chetsford (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, interesting topic. I'm afraid aircraft aren't my forte, but I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the infobox, "helicopter" --> "Helicopter"
"crashed and submerged" --> "Crashed and submerged"
"1968 - 1975": should be an unspaced endash rather than a hyphen
"Four - "the Black Knights" - was...": should be endashes rather than hyphens
"Yorktown - and Squadron Four - was": same as above
"achieving - in the words of Dwayne A. Day - the status...": same as above
"in the words of Dwayne A. Day": suggest clarifying who Day was here
in the lead, suggest wikilinking "NASA"
in the lead, I'm not sure about the wording of the second paragraph. I'd suggest maybe "The aircraft crashed in the Pacific Ocean in 1975 during a training exercise, and has not been recovered", or something similar.
the lead includes some information not in the body of the article, for instance the serial and construction number
if known, I'd suggest adding details about where the aircraft was constructed, and when its construction began
in the External links, the title should start with a capital 'T'
watch out for image sandwiching
hyphens to dashes in text and infobox
are there any details known about the amount of flying hours or operational sorties the aircraft undertook?
citation # 11: is there a page number for this?
citation # 16: "MANUELA - HELICOPTER U.S. NAVY 66 (SONG)" shouldn't be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS
citation # 16 also should have some more bibliographic details such as accessdate, publisher etc.
was the design specifically modified SAR operations?
"File:Helicopter 66 Apollo 8.jpg": probably should have the date added to the date field on the image description page (I assumed 27 December 1968?)
"torpedos" --> "torpedoes"

Thanks very much for this for this thorough review. I've made all of these updates with the exception of its assembly location and special mods. I happen to know final assembly was at the Sikorsky facility in Stratford, Connecticut but, unfortunately, I can't cite this to a RS. As for special mods, I don't have any information that it was SAR-modified and, since it was simultaneously performing ASW missions, I think that may be the reason for the dearth of information on that point (i.e. that it was an unmodified 3D model). Chetsford (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, your changes look good. I tweaked the dashes and the only thing outstanding I think is the page number for the citation to RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (now citation # 13). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just added the page number! Chetsford (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

PD-USGov-NASA notes that use of emblems is restricted - are we following those restrictions? The text in the permissions field is concerning.
""Helicopter_U.S._Navy_66".ogg exceeds the limits permitted by WP:SAMPLE and has an incomplete FUR - I don't think its use is justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria thanks much- I wasn't even aware of PD-USGov-NASA; I've removed the mission badges and sound sample (added external link in its place). Chetsford (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from CPA-5 edit

Good day i like the page it is an interesting page however i have some suggestions. CPA-5 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How much is 120 knots?
Change historian Dwayne A. Day --> Historian Dwayne A. Day same with pilot Leo Rolek --> Pilot Leo Rolek
Ref 2 have an error.
Ref 11 have a paywall.
Ref 14 same as Ref 11.
Ref 19 |language=; is missing for German.
Ref 20 |language=; is wrong Flemish is not a language needs to remove and put Dutch as language.
Ref 21 |language=; is missing for Dutch.

continue review

Please add the (East Sea) next to Sea of Japan cause of disputed name.
German singer Manuela --> German Singer Manuela
Please add the job or rank of Donald S. Jones.
Is there page of the Anti-Submarine Air Group 59 if there is one please link it.
Who or what is Tom O'Hara can you link it/her/him if it's a him or her please add the job or rank.

CPA-5 - thanks very much for this. I've made all these corrections. Chetsford (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5 - I've made the second batch of edits. Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: G'day, in the interests of moving forward with this review, would you mind letting the nominator know if you are happy to support this article's promotion to A-class? Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford:,@AustralianRupert: G'day my apology for waiting so long the page looks good however this only need to change "in the words of space historian Dwayne A. Day" --> "in the words of space Historian Dwayne A. Day" if this is changed then i think the page is A. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5 - thanks so much. I'm not 100% sure "historian" is a proper noun, though? Chetsford (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: A historian is like a professor which both are high-ranked titles it's the same with a king or emporor before you say the full name. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 I'm not going to make that edit as Day's title is not "Historian" (it's "Senior Program Officer for the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council"); the word is being invoked in this instance as a concrete noun, not a proper noun. Thanks very much for your review, however, in any case! Best - Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: May i ask you why the article call him "historian" if he is not. I mean if he isn't a "historian" then it should be removed from the article am i right. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, no problem. He is an historian, however, his title is not "Historian". Similarly, you are a human and it would be correct to say "I know the human CPA-5 edits Wikipedia". However, if I said "I know Human CPA-5 edits Wikipedia" that would indicate your official title is "Human" (which, I assume, it is not). Except in German (or maybe some other languages about which I'm not aware), the capitalization of a noun indicates it is being used as a proper noun. Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see, i guess its an A-class in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

I like interesting bits of history like this. Articles like this are the sort of thing we do so much better than traditional encyclopaedias. It's a nice article. Just a few comments:

Some context on why oceanic recovery of astronauts was necessary would be nice.
The phrase "took the stick again" seems a little too informal
What are kill marks?
However, recognizing the fame Helicopter 66 had achieved "However" is frowned upon on Wikipedia, perhaps excessively so but this use doesn't add much; I'd just remove the word—the sentence works fine without it.
repainting Helicopter 740 as Helicopter 66 for the subsequent recovery missions Strictly speaking, "later" might be more correct here than "subsequently"
The lead is a little short and could maybe do with another few sentences.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: in case you missed this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - thanks very much for the ping and the review. I'll make these changes right now! Chetsford (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - I've just made all these changes. For point 1, I added this explanation as a note. For point 3, I created a new article - victory marking - and added this as a wikilink. Let me know if I missed anything or you have any more suggestions and thanks again! Chetsford (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.