Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 at this time (review period expired). EyeSerenetalk 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II[edit]

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil "Ad astra"'


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think the article is pretty close to FA status after week of collaborative work among Fnlayson, Kyteto, myslef and a few others. I plan to (co-)nominate the article for FA status, eventually Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Be consistent in whether you include "(UK)" after British locations.
 Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't put dates or years of publication inside publisher parameters.
 Half done ... or rather, I just fixed some of these, we'll need to recheck if they're all gone --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the bibliography but with no citations: Lehman (2001).
  • In the citations you say "Eden et al 2004" but list no other authors than Eden in the bibliography. Eisfbnore • talk 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is because he's the editor - what's the best way to handle this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eden is listed as "General Editor" for that book. There may have been some authors that wrote the earlier text that was edited for the book though. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I've changed these footnotes to list only Eden to match what the book lists. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • External links check out [1] (no action required).
    • Two dabs [2]
    • The Citation Check tool reveals a few errors with the consolidation of citations:
      • "Wilson 2000, p. 39." (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • "Wilson_p39" (Multiple references are using the same name)
        •  Done these refs have now been combined by Sp33dyphil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images all have alt text [3] (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [4] (no action required).
    • Images all seem to either be PD or appropriately licenced (no action required).
    • Minor inconsistency in the presentation of USMC. In the lead you write "United States Marine Corps (USMC)" and later "US Marine Corps (USMC)", probably best to pick one and apply it consistently (I note you use terms like US Army and US Navy in places so perhap US Marine Corps would be the consistent choice).
      • Uncertain about this; the longer version seems more appropriate for the lead and for section headings etc later (where it's also used), but seems too clumsy to use in full in the text later on. I'll see what Phil thinks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Sp33dyphil has replaced all occurrences of "US Marine Corps" with "United States Marine Corps" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The plan for Harrier II development was authorized by the Defense Department in 1976." The wikilink for United States Department of Defence should probably be moved here.
    • Not sure about this construction: "The Gulf War highlighted the effectiveness of night attacks. In 1985, McDonnell Douglas commenced work..." The proximity of the two sentences implies possible a causal link, yet the Gulf War happened in 1990/91. Maybe move the first sentence to the end of the paragraph and reword a little. For instance "The Gulf War later highlighted the effectiveness of night attacks by Harriers"?
      •  Half done I've removed the sentence entirely as it's out of place in the section about the development of the aircraft. I wonder if it's worth including in the Operational History if the sources do discuss the NA capabilities being of particular importance in that conflict - the Litening pod is mentioned for the later one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "hand-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) control principle", shouldn't this be "hands-on-throttle-and-stick" (with an s)?
    • You wikilink F/A-18 Hornet a couple of times, should only wikilink first mention (except in the lead) per WP:REPEATLINK.
    • "The first combat sorties of the unit's AV-8Bs occurred two days later, with one aircraft lost..." do we know what caused this loss? Might be interesting to include that information if it is available.
    • "The aircraft also saw service during the Iraq War..." maybe add the date for context?
    • "The Marine service", perhaps reword to "The Marine Corps"?
      •  Done, also replaced another occurrence of "service" with "Corps" for consistency. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Spain, already using the US-manufactured AV-8S Matadors, became..." Is "Matadors" here correct, or should it be "Matador". I'm not sure to be honest but "Matadors" seems grammatically incorrect to me at least.
    • Is this correct also: "first three Matadors II"? Or should it be "Matador IIs"?
      • I puzzled over these two... I'm assuming the unusual plural is an artefact of translation (would Spanish consider the variant designation an adjective modifying the aircraft name, analogous with "courts martial"?) but I'd be interested to know what the sources use for the plural of these aircraft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Sp33dyphil has changed it to "Matador IIs" instead of "Matadors II" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • US Navy is wikilinked multiple times, probably need to reduce per WP:REPEATLINK.
      •  Done - only wikilinked twice, and at opposite ends of the article, but I've removed the second. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation # 118 " Epstein, David G. Making and Doing Deals: Contracts in Context (second edition). Newark, New Jersey: LexisNexis, 2006. p. 55. ISBN 9780820570440." is inconsistent with the style adopted through out the text. By and large you use short citations per WP:CITESHORT so this should also be used here IMO. That is the citation should be "Epstein 2006, p. 55.", with the full bibliographic entry listed in the Bibliography section.
    • Overall, this is quite well done IMO, just a few minor issues to rectify/discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. Most issues appear to have been resolved so I'm happy to support. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Just squeaking in on this one ... I've learned a lot from recent aviation articles, and want to learn more. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II is ...": Wow, what a headache. If you look at for instance the bottom of this page, some list it as the "McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II", some as the "Boeing/BAe AV-8B Harrier II", and some as the "McDonnell Douglas/BAe AV-8B Harrier II". How do you guys generally make the call when the sources don't agree on a name? - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II is ...": I had to think about this, but I've decided I can't support the "(now Boeing)", because "The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II" either is or functions as a name, and we don't insert parenthetical comments in the middle of a name. Depending on how you answer the question above about what name sources use, you could start out for instance "The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II or Boeing AV-8B Harrier II is ...". I agree that you want to mention as soon as possible that McDonnell Douglas is "now Boeing" or was bought out by Boeing ... just not in the middle of what we're using as the name of the jet. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "McDonnell Douglas" in this case functions as the adjective for "AV-8B Harrier II", because it was the manufacturer. But, I'm happy with your suggestion above. BTW, "Boeing/BAe AV-8B Harrier" is wrong because the unaccompanied "Harrier" refers to the first-generation Hawker Siddeley Harrier, which had been phased out. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, quite right, I've gone back and inserted the II's. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Boeing and BAE Systems have jointly managed the program since the 1990s." What does it mean for a British company to "manage" a US Defense Dept program? Does this mean they have a contract to service some of the jets? - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. Here's the answer, which is why [5] calls it the McDonnell Douglas/BAe AV-8B Harrier II. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Per User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Aviation_articles, Harry has just offered to take the lead on copyediting aviation and biography articles for A-class and FAC ... quite a relief. Still, call on me any time if I can be of use. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (part 1). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice the structure of the lead varies considerably form Hawker Siddeley Harrier—that article's opening paragraph deals primarily with lineage, whereas this one talks about the platforms from which it can be operated (which seems a bit off-topic to be given such prominence).
  • Harrier GR5, GR7 and GR9 versions were used by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.—since this article is about the American version, what the RAF and RN do with their similar-but-not-the-same aircraft is a bit off-topic and certianly doesn't belong in the lead.
 Done removed by Sp33dyPhil. This leaves no mention at all of the existence of the BAe Harrier II in the lead, which seems slightly confusing for anyone trying to get a quick overview, but I guess it'll do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spain and Italy also use the aircraft, with the latter able to assemble them locally.—again, not really relevant in the lead (it notability stems from its use by the Yanks, not the Spaniards, the Italians, or the Brits) and the second half of the sentence is appallingly constructed.
 Done sentence shortened and reworded by Sp33yPhil to "The AV-8B is used by the United States Marine Corps (USMC), Spanish Navy and Italian Navy." I think it's still reasonable to have a brief mention of the Spanish/Italian use here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A dedicated two-seat trainer version is the TAV-8B—grammar: "The TAV-8B is a dedicated two-seat training version" (and if the TAV-8B is worthy of a mention in the lead, you need to elaborate a bit further than one sentence).
  • Are you sure? The sources use trainer, for example "Italy was the first country to order the trainer version" in Jenkins. See Trainer (aircraft) (which perhaps should be wikilinked here?) which also talks about "trainer versions" in this context. I notice the RAF website (British English) refers to training aircraft not trainer aircraft, but many other online sources use "trainer aircraft", "trainer variant" etc. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I've now made it consistently "trainer" throughout, and wikilinked the first occurrence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word order is  Done by Sp33dyPhil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the AV-8B Harrier II shares the designation with the earlier AV-8A/C—??? If this is the 8B, how does it share a designation with the 8A? And what does that mean in plain English?
  • I'm not sure why they didn't change the designation. The "AV-8" is retained, just the last letter that was changed. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point there is the basic designation, AV-8, did not change. The letter at the end are for the particular variant. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed this to "Although the Harrier II shares the AV-8 designation with the earlier AV-8A/C Harrier, the AV-8B was extensively redesigned" etc.  Question: is this clear enough wording, and/or is it too clumsy now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased to six—from how many?
  •  Done Sp33dyphil has added/fixed this - actually it was increased from five to seven. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • , and the aircraft took part in combat in Iraq again during the Iraq War in 2003—I would split this from the preceding clause into its own sentence. Did AV-8B see service in Afghanistan?
Sentence split  Done by Sp33dyphil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the AV-8Bs weren't deployed to Afghanistan. If they did, who would the aircraft have fought against? I assume Al-Qaeda had no troops. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I know there are/were British Harriers deployed there, which is why I asked. I wasn't sure about AV-8Bs, but that seems to suggest they were. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • US AV-8Bs have participated in Afghanistan, at least for the first few years. The Nordeen book has a short chapter on Afghanistan. I started adding text on it to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian and Spanish Harrier IIs participated in overseas conflicts, often in conjunction with NATO coalitions.—that sentence looks like it was tossed in to make sure a country other than the Us is mentioned in that paragraph. It should be removed or expanded.
The Italian and Spanish sections of "Operations" combined total seven parapraphs, which is the same as the seven paragraphs (albeit rather larger paragraphs) devoted to USMC operations. So this is probably worth expanding rather than removing, particularly in view of your next point. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done dates added by Sp33dyphil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check my edit summaries for a few edits I've flagged for you to check
 Done Sp33dyphil has confirmed that this edit and this edit are indeed correct and what was intended. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:14, 11 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/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II/archive1&oldid=1142557555"