Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silverplate/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 promoted by Ian Rose 14:59, 30 April 2014 [1].

Silverplate

Nominator(s): Reedmalloy (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another in the Manhattan Project series. Originally the name for the aircraft modification project for the B-29 Superfortress bomber to enable it to drop an atomic weapon, Silverplate eventually came to identify the training and operational aspects of the program as well. The article passed Good Article and A class reviews last year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one brief, happy, moment I thought it might be on actual silver plate, but even as I clicked, I knew my hopes were doomed. Oh well, at least it's not a racehorse. The only thing I'll say is that the arrow-in-circle "play" icon on the lead pic looks as though it's a logo on the plane's tail, which I thought it was at first. If it can be moved, that would be better. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The arrow in a circle is the tail marking of the 509th Composite Group. It is painted on the aircraft. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed at ACR, and think it meets the standards for FA. Even if it's not a racehorse... ;) NB: I thought it was a logo on the tail, like the picture below it? If it's not supposed to be a logo, I'm happy to have a go at digitally removing it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I think you're right. It doesn't play a video for sure! Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wracking my brains to think of a race horse. Was it Silver Charm, which won the Kentucky Derby back in 1997? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

The only issue that I have is with the use of the CPI for price inflation. I've run into this issue with warships and I don't believe that the CPI is actually useful as weapon prices are effectively capital costs.
- I don't quite agree with that characterization for an aircraft of which hundreds are built on a production line, as opposed to a warship, of which very few are normally built. There's also an ongoing debate still about whether the cost of an aircraft includes the R&D cost. This causes it to appear that the aircraft gets cheaper as you build more of them. The CPI gives us a comparative value for consumer goods. Ideally, the figure would accurately cover what it would costs to build a B-29 (not a B-2 bomber) today. It think it gives a reasonable idea of relative values in terms of goods forgone. The ABS publishes a number of other indices, but most readers would not have seen them before and we don't have the automated calculation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that it was using CPI... I'd agree that the use of CPI here is inappropriate - it's only a valid comparison method for certain types of goods and services, but not military aircraft. The wiki inflation template used in the section, which in turn uses the CPI data, notes on its page that "This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research." You'd probably want one of the measures that uses a share of GDP approach. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Using anything else would be OR, so I've removed the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a ACR reviewer and I would suggest to the delegates that another non-MilHist reviewer review the article before any decision to promote is made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, getting at least one review from outside the related project (whether that project be MilHist, Roads, Video Games, X-Files, or whatever) is always preferred. Incidentally, we could also use a source review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Evad37

"when Dr. Norman F. Ramsey from the Los Alamos Laboratory's Group E-7, identified" – stray comma? or missing comma before the word from?
- Stray comma. Rounded up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Thin Man gun-type fission weapon ... Fat Man implosion-type weapon" – WP:SEAOFBLUE linking is undesirable, any chance of rephrasing or adjusting the links?
- The only solution is to remove the description, and leave it to the reader to click on the links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same issue occurs multiple times in the article (eg [[Captain (United States O-6)|Captain]] [[William S. Parsons]])
- This is okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The results were disappointing; the bomb fell in a flat spin. But the need for a thorough test program was demonstrated." – The use of "But" at the start of the sentence doesn't seem ideal, how do you feel about "The results were disappointing – the bomb fell in a flat spin – but the need for a thorough test program was demonstrated." ? Or what about using "However," instead of "But"?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"British Type G single-point attachments and Type F releases" – links and/or explanations of what types G & F are?
- Single-point attachments and releases. A kind of hook and quick release mechanism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"²³⁹
Pu
" (and the other isotopes) – use the English names (plutonium-239, etc) instead of the symbols - more understandable for a general audience, per WP:MTAU
- Done, but I doubt if it will make much difference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Pullman B-29 was flown to Wendover Army Air Field in Utah and assigned to further drop testing in September 1944 with the 216th Army Air Force Base Unit until it was damaged in a landing accident in December." – long sentence, consider rephrasing to two sentences
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Flying at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) put them above the effective range of Japanese flak." – start of a new paragraph, so it would be better to use a more specific term than "them"
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Silverplate operational units' section – the numbers keep switching between numbers as words and numbers as numbers, including in the same sentence ("Twenty-nine of these were assigned to the 509th Composite Group during World War II, with 15 used"). Can we have a bit more consistency?
- MOS:NUMERAL requires words at the start of sentences so the sentence doesn't begin with digits. Re-worded to get around this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"One other Silverplate B-29, on temporary assignment in the United Kingdom was converted" – missing a comma before the word "was"
- Aha! That's where it came from! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Costs' section – are all the figures in the source? (just want to make sure there aren't WP:SYNTH issues)
- Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions which are complete sentences should end with a period (.)
- Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 26 (History of 509th Composite Group, pp. 58–62): no link to reference?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference style seems otherwise consistent (sources not checked)
The article is looking good otherwise - Evad37 [talk] 11:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Evad37 [talk] 13:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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