Talk:42nd Air Base Wing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peacock terms[edit]

I have noticed that quite a few of these Air Base Wing articles contain the phrase: "The wing has a long and distinguished history." I kind of feel it violates WP:PEACOCK. Any comments? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WW 2, conversion B-26 to B-25[edit]

At some point during 1942 or 1943, the 42d Bomb Group converted from Martin B-26 Marauders to B-25 aircraft, ending the war in 1945 with B-25's. Also, they flew Douglas A-26 Invaders and Douglas A-20 Havocs shortly after the war until deactivation in 1946. It would improve the article to clarify and include this information into the WW 2 section.--TGC55 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lineagegeek (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:42d Air Base Wing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Lead

  • what is a "host unit"?
  • link Caribbean Sea
  • what does The wing was consolidated with the group mean?

Mission

  • there is some strange stuff going on with direct links from the names of the CO and Command Chief to websites. This is not IAW with MOS for links.

UnitscheckY
History

  • see later comment about bolding
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, Military exercise, and Griffiss Air Force Base are overlinked
 Done --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS, bolding should be limited to the common names for the Wing in the WP:LEAD. Currently there are bolded unit names in several other sections.
Removed two extra boldings of 42d Air Base Wing and bolding in lineage. Previous names of the wing that are in the lead or at the beginning of a section of an article, and which are redirects to the article were retained in bold. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? MOS:BOLD says "To identify terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the targets of redirects to the article or section (e.g. sub-topics of the article's topic, rather than the synonyms as already boldfaced per the above". These are synonyms already boldfaced in the lead. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not clear why the 42d Medical group text is indented
 Done It isn't any more. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • the Occupation of Japan streamer isn't cited
 Done
  • several sources have multiple numerical identifiers, which is unnecessary and clutters up the Reference section. Only one identifier is needed (ISBN, OCLC etc)

 Done (reluctantly) --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • one broken link (Ravenstein- see link at bottom)
 Done Problem was not a broken link, but bad formatting within the template. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a bit of citation bombing, for facts that don't appear to be controversial for example fns 5, 6-10; fns 8, 10, 16, 17; fns 1, 7, 16, 17
Many are needed to support all facts in an apparently simple sentence:
Starting in the WW II History 1. Footnote 5 supports activation information, but 6 is only source for cadre. To support original activation and assignment, because of the way Maurer's books are written, separate entries are required for the group and each squadron. I've started to look at the possibility of cutting back by combining some squadron cites, but so far because of use of indiviual cites elsewhere, this may not be practical. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the placement of citations is confusing. eg fn 20, does that refer to the whole quotation and the para above, or just to the quotation? But where it becomes very confusing is in the lineage section. The citations are placed at the end of the last dot point, so the reader has to assume the citation covers all the dot points above it. In Operational Squadrons, this becomes worse, because one dot point has it's own citation, in Support and Maintenance Squadrons, several do, some are the same citation. Stations is similar.
Moved fn 55 to head of lineage section, moved to narrative from notes, (best placement?) and added awards and campaigns to the description of the source, removing notes --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there really isn't any need to repeat the fn 11 in every line on the second table. A short introductory sentence below the heading, ending in a colon then the fn would suffice. I recommend you take this approach with all the dot point lists in the Lineage section, it will clarify that all the information below it is drawn from that source, with other citations by exception as necessary.
 Done See prior remark. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cohn seems to have been written by members of the Wing. Is it really a third-party source independent of the subject, per WP:RS?
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • File:B-18-00910460 113.jpg, lack source and author info
 Done Looks like most of the folks who uploaded contemporary Air Corps pictures of the B-18 didn't supply much on their sources. Substituted a picture of a museum plane. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The licensing on File:Rabaul under air attack.jpg is incomplete
 Done Source was ibiblio.org, template added --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Flickr link for File:Guarding a B-52 Stratofortress in Winter.jpg is broken
 Done Replaced image. A closer look at the image raises a question concerning release of copyright by Time-Life. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the source link for File:Boeing KC-135 J57 takeoff.JPEG doesn't resolve
Have to try this again. Search term for the link appears incorrect, this is a KC-135A, not a KC-135E. Using that search term, received an "unable to search still images at this time" message, so will have to try another day. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sorry to lose the color image of the smoker, but found a 42d airplane that was PD-USAF document to upload and used it instead. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. will look at this once the images licensing is sorted
7. Overall assessment. Failing per comments. The two main issues are the unresolved copyvio, the questions about the reliability/independence of Cohn as a source, and some MOS issues. Feel free to ask for a second opinion. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. Earwig indicates a 90+% chance of copyright violations of globalsecurity.org/wmd/agency/42bw.htm, which is copyright and was last modified on 24 July 2011. I have manually confirmed several sentences and fragments of sentences that are identical to sentences and fragments on globalsecurity.org. However, WikiBlame indicates that at least one of those sentence fragments was added to this article in December 2009, well before the globalsecurity.org page was last modified. IMO, it is likely that globalsecurity.org lifted the text from en WP, rather than the other way around. For that reason, I am not going to pursue the Earwig results further. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Broken link: this one Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See note 1. Since you raised the issue after checking Earwig, I found an archived version of the http://web.archive.org/web/20030302141721/http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/agency/42bw.htm GlobalSecurity article on the "42nd Bomb Wing" dated 2 March 2003 that contains the same text that was added to the article. I seems pretty clear to me that the December 2009 edit lifted the material from GlobalSecurity. It is unsourced and if you compare the 2009 edit to the Global Security page, I think they will be identical. In editing the article, I sourced the content elsewhere and did some rephrasing (but kept a lot as called for by Wikimanners -- not making edits just because I like the language better). I have added the Global Security article (and others) to the external links. I'll recheck to see if any of the language in the Loring section is supported only by the Global Security site for removal. Further suggestions are welcome. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does Earwig reset? I have rewritten the first paragraph of the Cold War section, and checked to see the impact that would have on Earwig's copyvio analysis, and it still compares that paragraph in the GlobalSecurity.com article to the equivalent paragraph in the previous edit. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to mark this as  Done. The text Earwig is using to compare is not the text of the article as it exists. I can revisit it if anything comes up in a comparison of the GlobalSecurity.com article and the article as it currently exists on Wikipedia. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's still some material in the article now that matches the 2003 archive you link - see https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20030302141721%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fwmd%2Fagency%2F42bw.htm&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F42d_Air_Base_Wing&minwords=2&minchars=13 Duplication Detector for some examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are apparently a lot of tools I don't know about. A few at the top of the page look like they could use some work. I've diverted, but will return to this to take care of them. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Non-trivial duplicates have been reworded, removed or cited to the GlobalSecurity.org article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: are you now happy about the copyvio issues identified earlier? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite: "Cold War tensions between the United States and Russia came to a head in October 1962. President John F. Kennedy informed the American public" for example still shows as being identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this has taken such a long time. I suggest that with the copyvio issue still not completely resolved, and the lack of response for about five weeks to the question about the reliability of Cohn, this article isn't going to be GA soon. I intend to fail it in the next 48 hours on criteria 2b. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failing per my comments. Some criteria are not complete as I have decided the copyvio and source issues (plus a few MOS issues) are enough to pull up the review. Sorry about that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 42d Air Base Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:42nd_Air_Base_Wing&oldid=1197041430"