Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lockheed D-21

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Lockheed D-21 edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that it meets the criteria. This reconnaissance drone and mother ship combination were bleeding-edge technology in the early 1960s when they were designed, which made them exceedingly expensive and very risky. One such pair collided after launch which destroyed both and forced the change to the far less risky Boeing B-52 as the launch vehicle. The program was plagued with failures as the electronics of the day were barely up to the task demanded of them. After only four operational launches into Chinese airspace, the program was cancelled for political reasons as well as technical and cost grounds in 1971.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Nice article -- succinct, well written/researched, properly cited, and great images, all correctly licenced.
  • I have a minor structural quibble, namely that the lead makes clear that the switch in motherplane from M-21 to B-52 occurred due to an accident, but the "Change in carrier" subsection in the main body barely alludes to this, leaving it until "Testing" for the details of the accident to emerge. I think that even though it could be considered part of design, the change in carrier should be wholly dealt with chronologically, under testing, since that's when it happened.
  • You could also make "Testing" a fully fledged section, since technically I don't think we'd say it was part of the operational history. If you did this you'd then have the following sections:
    • Design and development (merging the "Change in D-21 carriers" subsection info, without a heading, with the "Testing" section)
    • Testing (dropping "Operational history" section heading at this point)
    • Operational history (instead of "Operations" subsection)

Anyway, that's how I'd do it. Well done no matter what. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I usually stick to biographies, but I can cope with aircraft articles and reviewers seem to be thin on the ground here. What nit-picks I have, I'll post below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could probably get away with another paragrpah in the lead
      • let me think about that.
    • The "nationality" of the aircraft and its primary operator are thign one would normally expect to see in the lead
    • Done.
    • Well-known units of measurement shouldn't be linked
      • Especially not on their second mention
        • Agreed.
    • What's an LCO? The abbreviation should be given in full the first time it's mentioned (not the second)
      • Done.
    • "to" or "through" in date ranges? While the latter sounds awful to these (British) ears, you should pick one and stick with it.
      • I only spotted one "through" date ranges, but I'm not seeing any "to" date ranges. Can you point them out?
    • One big question: how much did one of these things cost? Not cheap, I imagine.
      • Good question, I'll have to see if I can find a total program cost. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • The citation check tool reveals one error (Donald 2003, p. 155 - "Multiple references contain the same content");
    • "that used much of the technology as the A-12", should this be "that used much of the same technology as the A-12"?
    • "Kelly Johnson specified speeds", this should just be "Johnson" at second mention per WP:SURNAME;
    • "Kelly Johnson wanted to power the Q-12", as above;
    • "The hatch would be ejected at the end of the mission and it would be snagged", this seems a little convoluted... maybe reword to something like "The hatch would be ejected at the end of the mission and snagged";
    • "in size by about 20%.", this seems inexact. Can you be more specific?; and
    • "A test in February 1969 that tested", this is a bit repetitive, can it be reworded? Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two identical footnotes and I combined them. I reworded and clarified based to address the above comments. I do not think the sources are any more precise than ~20%. I do not have my books handy here to check and doubt additional precision is needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sturm, if you're taking this to FAC, they're not going to like the page title per WP:SLASH, that is, it's not clear from looking at the title what the slash means. Since the article is devoted to the D-21 with maybe 3 paragraphs of material total on the M-21, you might want to consider Lockheed D-21 as the title. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name change to Lockheed D-21 was brought up on the article's page previously. Consensus was against due to it being incomplete. Somebody can suggest something on the talk page if they want. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Lockheed MD-21 was suggested previously. If this is headed to FAC, how do we deal with the requirement at WP:SLASH to limit slashes to phrases "widely used"? Was the slash in Lockheed D-21/M-21 "widely used"? And even if so, if the two were considered a unit at one time, this article deals with the Lockheed D-21 separately. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Lockheed A-12-based aircraft": the double hyphen is awkward, and I'm not sure what it means to be based on an aircraft ... would "modified" work? - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded to say the M-21 is a version of the A-12. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturm and I have been talking about the title via email, we're both happy with Lockheed D-21 with a redirect from Lockheed M-21. I'll do the move; feel free to discuss if that doesn't work for anyone. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to finish the discussion on the article's talk page. That's about done though. No real disagreements. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that the slash actually created a subdirectory in article space (a policy violation) and a subdirectory off this ACR, so the slash was a no-go from the start. Discussions during a review usually happen on the review page, although I'm happy to read any discussion that happens on the article page. so when there's a relevant discussion on the article talk page, please point me there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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/Lockheed_D-21&oldid=1075714095"