Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lockheed Have Blue

< 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.

No consensus to promote. However there are plenty of suggestions below to help with the article's development, and if it's being taken across to WP:AVIATION a good starting point would be the outstanding items and MilborneOne's review (which has been unaddressed here due to lack of time but would be valuable if carried over). EyeSerenetalk 10:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Have Blue

edit
Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil "Ad astra"'


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...the article had just passed GA nomination. I believe the article is an FA potential, and the first step towards nominating it at FAC is here. The article is accurate and verifiable, well-written (I hope!), neutral, and follows MoS guidelines. At the end of this ACR I wish to learn how I can improve, not just for this particularly article, but other aviation and military history-related as well. I'd also like editors to rate the article using {{Rating|X|X}}, so I can have a visual of the Project's general feeling of the article. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Why doesn't Alison J. get any credit in the citations? You list them as a coauthor of Crickmore's in the bibliography.
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books or not.
  • In citations but not in bibliography: Eden 2004. Eisfbnore • talk 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing a bit with this, if you head to FAC Globalsecurity.org and FAS.org will not be considered 'high quality' sources. You're also using Crickmore a bit heavily, which is understandable given the scope of his book, but finding another author to complement Crickmore would be ideal. You'd be surprised at what two different authors can uncover on the same subject. Overall, though, this is a great article – nice work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What does this mean? Northrop's submission featured angular and flat surfaces, although the company's and Lockheed's designs were similar to each other.
Yesss, but it could be expressed better -- have a look at my copyedit and see what you think... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Senior Trend section even here? It should be condensed to a single sentence saying how the Have Blue success led to the F-117.
  • These are awkward, think about combining them: Afterwards, a model was moved to radar testing facility in the Mojave Desert near Palmdale. The Grey Butte Range, owned by McDonnell Douglas, allowed more accurate tests of the aircraft's RCS.
Kumioko

Great job, I really only saw a couple minor things.

  1. The reference for Ufimtsev, P. Ya, doesn't appear in the bibliography.
  2. I'm not sure if the http://www.paglen.com/pages/projects/nowhere/archive/have_blue.htm is a very good reference so it might be better to try and find a better one if possible.
  3. I think the http://area51specialprojects.com/haveblue.html is also a questionable reference and should probably be replaced as well if possible.

I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply well done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose

Useful job, Phil. You asked me elsewhere to advise on your writing and I remarked at the time on the generally high standard of your work. I stand by that but we can all use some critiques of our prose, me included, and I note you've also asked here for a "rating" on your efforts.

  • With the above in mind, I've tried to spell out in edit summaries why I've made certain changes. However I've stopped at Construction and further tests because I think you should go over the rest of the article and copyedit it yourself.
  • I'll make the general comment here that basic layout, prose and style is okay; most of the stuff I've noticed includes typical grammatical things that you might pick up yourself just re-reading the article, "visually" (silently) to get the typos, and aloud to check the flow/structure of sentences.
  • The most serious thing in this one (I haven't noticed it particularly in other articles of yours) is the tense switching every so often. One example is this, where we go from past to present in two sentences (my italics):

To build the demonstrators, Ben Rich had to raise $10.4 million from the Lockheed management, which was secured by June. Phase 2 encompasses three main objectives, which are the validation of: the four low-observable signatures (radar, infrared, acoustics and visual); acceptable flying qualities; and the "modeling capabilities that accurately predict low observable characteristics of an aircraft in flight.

  • In the next example (after you correct a careless typo), you can probably get away with the present-tense "is needed" because you're saying you need more air in all takeoffs, not just with this plane (again, my italics):

The flight control system was borrowed from the F-16. The overwing engine inlet was covered by a low-RCS grid; during takeoffs, when more air is need, blow-in doors were constructed at the upper fuselage to admit additional airflow.

  • CommentSupport
    • external links check out [1], and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
    • Three dabs [2] (action required)
    • Some images lack alt text [3] - its not an ACR requirement but you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only).
    • Not sure this is clear: "Martin and Ben Rich, who recently became Skunk Works' president". Recently now, or recently then? If you are attempting to use past tense then I think this should be reworded as "who at that time had recently become" or something similar to make it more clear.
    • This seems a little redundant: "(CIA) gave Skunk Works the permission to discuss", specifically "the permission", IMO this could probably be reworded to "(CIA) gave Skunk Works permission to discuss..."
    • This is unclear to me: "formally requested DARPA for participation in the program". Was the request made to DARPA for Lockheed to be allowed to participate or did Lockheed request that DARPA also participate in the program? Perhaps reword here.
    • Not sure about this: "Overholser later recounted on his discussion with Sherrer", specifically "recounted on", this might be more simply worded as "Overholser later recounted his discussion with Sherrer".
    • "The heat there built up, failing the hydraulic lines." This might be better as "The heat built up there, causing the hydraulic lines to fail."
    • Overall this a very good article IMO. Just a couple of technical and a few prose issues to resolve/discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting where Ian stopped, at Construction and further tests.
  • "the four low-observable signatures (radar, infrared, acoustics and visual)": I asked at the YF-23 FAC (and didn't get an answer) if "all-aspect" stealth meant anything more than radar and infrared; does it include acoustics and visual? (And is "visual stealth" nothing more than a fancy term for camouflage?) IMO, "a low-observable signature in radar" would be so much easier to read as "reduced susceptibility to detection by radar", and I'll make the edit ... let me know if there's some technical point that I'm missing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming back to this, I noticed that 3 of those things belong together; I went with "reduced visibility in the radio wave, infrared, and visual spectrums and reduced acoustical observability". "Radar" isn't strictly parallel to "infrared" and "visual", but we can find a way to squeeze it in if "radio wave" doesn't work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "modeling capabilities that accurately predict low observable characteristics of an aircraft in flight.": It was missing a quote mark ... and I have no idea what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phase II": I went with "Phase 2" for consistency. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "23 October": I have no idea what year this is. It says, "On 1 November 1977, Lockheed and Northrop were each awarded $1.5-million contracts ...", then two sentences later, "In March 1976, a Lockheed model was transferred ...", then "23 October" comes in the next section. (And why are the 1976 and 1977 events not in chronological order?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Final assembly of HB1001": What's HB1001? You haven't mentioned HB1001 so far in the article.
  • "ground tested": Needs a link or explanation ... unfortunately, I can't find a suitable WP page to link to. Possibly, the first paragraph of Flight_test#Execution could be split off into a section called Ground testing.
  • "secret roll-out": "roll-out" generally means "unveiling", so "secret roll-out" is contradictory ... what does it mean?
  • "with ground tests beginning": You'll get some resistance at FAC to "with ...ing" in this sense; try "and ground tests began".
  • "While superficially similar to the later F-117, the Have Blue prototypes were smaller aircraft, about one quarter the weight of the F-117 ...": If it was much smaller, then "superficially similar" isn't the phrase I'd use; it means they appeared the same, and apparently, they didn't.
  • Oppose. I'll stop there, and I'm going to ask for opinions over at WT:AVIATION. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like to see Dan's points actioned or answered before doing any more myself -- although as it's gone well over the standard 28-day limit without achieving consensus, I believe this ACR should be closed at this point (neither Dan nor I can do that given our involvement) and renominated when Phil has had a chance to go over the comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne
  • I have nominated one of the images at commons for deletion, it claims to be pd but is credited to Lockheed Martin. As we already have on non-free image I am not sure if it needs to be rescued and uploaded to en-wiki.
  • In operational history/HB1001 it start with the first flight then goes straight into a commentary and history of the chase-plane pilot, breaks the flow perhaps need to deal with the two pilots in a different section.
  • In operational history/HB1002 it mentions re-building the aft fuselage, in latter sentence it stays the spin reovery chute was removed - they appear to be connected - perhaps that could be made clearer.
  • Some of the other text in operational history/HB1002 doesnt read right like "allowing the hot exhaust to migrate to the right engine compartment" it is not clear where from perhaps need to explain where the clamp was.
  • Intro - the first fixed-wing aircraft designed from an electrical engineering perspective, sounds like they did the wiring and generators first. Further down it says the design was based on compter calculations related to RCS, doesnt sound like electrical engineering.
  • Kenneth Watson was hired as the senior lead aircraft designer notable ?
  • Construction of both Have Blue demonstrators used leftover tools from the C-5 program - sounds like they left a few screwdrivers and wrenches on a bench, not really clear what it means.
  • I am not sure what you really require as part of this assesment so although I could go one with more points I will leave it at that for now, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks much for your review! This one is past the 28-day limit, so it will probably be closed soon without promotion. I don't have any idea if WP:AVIATION's A-class review will give different results, but I'm willing to review it over there, provided Phil wants to put it up there. If you want to copy your review over there, that would help get us started. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 14 September 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_Have_Blue&oldid=1142557565"