Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-17 Flying Fortress

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.

B-17 Flying Fortress edit

Article was been extensively reviewed and sourced, is comprehensive, follows guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and this project. Hoping FAC is next. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It does appear to be long, detailed, thorough, and well-written. The introduction, while concise, accurate, and also well-written, somehow seems a bit off to me. Maybe a bit too short. Maybe if you could add a sentence or two? Or smoosh the whole thing together into one paragraph, eliminating the line breaks, to make it look more solid on the page? Just an appearance-on-the-page thing, not really a content of the writing thing. LordAmeth 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. While the article is well-written and well-referenced, it lacks comprehensiveness. Specifically:

The lead section is too short (at least by FAC standards), and also contains some gushing POV (B-17's most notable features were high cruising altitude and durability, its payload, speed, and range were small compared to its contemporaries like the B-24 and the Lancaster). "One of the most significant" and "devastating payload" could be done away with.
The development section is too short. B-17 was a fairly unique design. The section essentially only deals with the prototype crash.
1. I agree, and have tried to add content, but I find it just overlaps with whats found in the "Variants/design stages" section, so I've kept the development section to just the development up to the YB-17s and the entry into the war, and everything afterwards to the later section. Should this be changed? How about if we change the variants section to just a list and short description of each variant and move the current content to the design section? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Comment No, you have the right time span for development (conception to entry into operational service) but a lot more can be said about B-17 development. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 'K, I'll work on it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The operational history section is too short. There is no comment at all on the poor operational accuracy of B-17 formations, on the fact that only the lead aircraft actually did the aiming due to mid-air collisions early in operational career resulting from all bombardiers looking down on the ground while maneuvering their aircraft. There should be some discussion on B-17's advantages and disadvantages compared to its contemporaries as well (see above, and of course without violating WP:NOR).
The post-war section is longer than Development and as long as Operational history and deals primarily with the few surviving warbirds.
The section on foreign service is non-existent. What about German-captured B-17s shadowing American formations? What about all the other countries in the "Operators" list (number serving, anything notable?)
1. Foreign service operators (specifically Germany and Israel) are mentioned under the "Operators" section, but since Germany used them during the war I'll add a bit to the "Operational service" section as well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Survivor does not equal Notable B-17. Most of the warbirds are late-war built cargo/hack aircraft with no notable history. Perhaps the section should be split up into Survivors and Notable aircraft.
IMHO nothing demonstrates the B-17 durability better than the photos of "All American" after it was rammed by a German fighter. http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselag2.htm
1. I'd love to add a pic of this but I can't find a source (although I'm sure it'll end up being an Airforces pic) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a good start but I think it needs a lot more contents. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per Emt147. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 30 December 2006 (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.