TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 254: | Line 254: | ||
===Third opinion=== |
===Third opinion=== |
||
First off, {{u|TeeTylerToe}}, you might want to read [[WP:TLDR]]. More importantly, I removed this entry from [[WP:3O]] because, frankly, you said yourself that multiple editors are involved; and 3O is for disputes between only ''two'' editors (also, why did you even list this at 3O when above you said that you are against that forum?). On that same note, I also wouldn't advise listing this at [[WP:DRN]] because it appears that this issue had been resolved before you even got involved, so this is thus borderline [[WP:POINT|point]]y judgment. '''<span style="color:{{ trim | red }};">{{ trim | Erpert }}</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:{{ trim | green }};">{{ trim | [[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]] }}</span></sup></small> 19:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC) |
First off, {{u|TeeTylerToe}}, you might want to read [[WP:TLDR]]. More importantly, I removed this entry from [[WP:3O]] because, frankly, you said yourself that multiple editors are involved; and 3O is for disputes between only ''two'' editors (also, why did you even list this at 3O when above you said that you are against that forum?). On that same note, I also wouldn't advise listing this at [[WP:DRN]] because it appears that this issue had been resolved before you even got involved, so this is thus borderline [[WP:POINT|point]]y judgment. '''<span style="color:{{ trim | red }};">{{ trim | Erpert }}</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:{{ trim | green }};">{{ trim | [[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]] }}</span></sup></small> 19:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Maury didn't respond to the talk page discussion. Only BilCat and I seem to be involved in the dispute. What point am I trying to make?[[User:TeeTylerToe|TeeTylerToe]] ([[User talk:TeeTylerToe|talk]]) 23:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:16, 2 July 2016
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Design team
No mention of Alexander Kartveli, its Georgian designer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.214.146 (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong Thunderbolt, I think.--172.190.41.54 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Quite right. Wrong Thunderbolt. Alexander Kartveli designed the P-47 Thunderbolt. He was 73 years old in 1970, retired for many years, when the USAF issued its detailed RFP for A-X. The Wikipedia article on Kartveli lists the A-10 as one of his "projects", which is simply not true. It's possible, even likely, that Fairchild put Kartveli's name on some of the A-10 documents to pay homage to him and the Thunderbolt heritage, but he was not involved in the A-10 project. Hardwarefreak (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
No. That isn't quite correct. Most likely the A-10 Thunderbolt isn't listed in that article for no reason. Apparently Alexander Kartveli resigned from Republic Aviation in 1962 and continued working for Fairchild Hiller from 1964 till he died in 1974. [1] [2] I once read somewhere that he literaly died while he was drawing another sketch for an aircraft. Maybe it wasn't all just homage but he in fact could have been involved in creating early concepts. There is only very limited information unvealed from archives so far and some old newspaper articles and information on his engagements with aircraft can be partialy found here on the internet but it seems he was engaged in many different projects of the US airforce and also NASA. He worked as consultant on aircraft design for Fairchild. So him being involved in early conceopts and development process of the A-10 Thunderbolt is nothing far fetched at all. This is rather a very interesting story and should be investigated further. If decicive or not, if he was working for Fairchild his presence had an impact on the development of the A-10 in any case. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Engine nacelle angle
In section "Durability" one can read the following sentence: The engines are angled upward by nine degrees to cancel out the nose-down pitching moment they would otherwise generate due to being mounted above the aerodynamic center of the aircraft. I believe this sentence is at least confusing, but more likely wrong. The engines are behind the center of mass of the aircraft, thus their upward angle would actually increase the "nose-down" torque. If one takes a look at the inboard profile drawing one can guess a different explanation: the axis of the engine intake and the axis of the exhaust are not parallel. So the air that flows through the engine changes its velocity in an upward direction (also its speed), hence gaining momentum in an upward direction by exerting a downward force on the engine. Since the engine is behind the center of mass it results in a torque that lifts the nose of the plane. So far this is not sufficient to explain the upward angle of the nacelle, since a parallel engine with an upward angled exhaust would also work. The reason for choosing a nacelle at an upward angle and a more or less parallel exhaust (maybe bit upward directed exhaust? - hard to tell from the drawing)is probably to reduce variation of pitching torque due to changes of engine thrust.* --AemonN (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AemonN (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- On second thought - the angle of the engine might be a compromise in pitching torque variation due to thrust and thrust alignment with the direction of flight.--AemonN (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The nacelle is tilted up at its front, as is the body of the engine, but the exhaust--and therefore the thrust, obviously--is angled up at what looks to me, from the engineering drawing I'm looking at, to be angled up at pretty much the same angle as the intake end of the nacelle is tilted up. I'm guessing that the only reason for the nacelle angle is because it takes advantage of the cleanest possible airflow over the wing and into the intake, but that's just a guess.173.62.11.8 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Reason Given For Engine Tilt
The "Durability" section makes the following statement:
- "The engines are angled upward by nine degrees to cancel out the nose-down pitching moment
- they would otherwise generate due to being mounted above the aircraft's center of gravity,
- avoiding the need to trim the control surfaces against the force."
The engines are located above the mass-center (Mc), so if the engines were aligned horizontally, the closest approach of the thrust line would be directly above the Mc, and forward thrust would generate a nose-down pitching moment equal to thrust times the vertical offset, consistent with the current statement (and apparently based upon the following reference).
- • Bell, Dana. A-10 Warthog in Detail & Scale, Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: TAB Books, 1986. ISBN 0-8168-5030-5.
Since the engines are also *aft* of the Mc, rotating them upward would move the point of closest approach between the thrust line and the Mc to be farther aft, but also to be of greater magnitude, which would tend to *increase* the nose-down pitching moment. In fact, if the engines were rotated up to be perpendicular to the Mc, the moment arm would be at its maximum, which would be the actual distance between the Mc and the engines. The article says that the engines were tilted upward in order to *decrease* the tendency for increased thrust to cause a nose-down pitching moment.
That statement was puzzling for a while, but obviously the plane was manufactured with just such a tilt to the engines, and done so for a reason.
The cause of the *reduced* nose down effect is likely due to entrainment of air that impinges on the horizontal tail, which is located aft and below the engines. The downward flow over the horizontal tail caused by increased flow through the engines associated with increased thrust would tend to counteract the thrust-induced nose-down pitching moment, which is just what is stated in the article although no explanation is given in the article.
I have not read the reference, nor do I plan to purchase the book in order to get access. The way the article reads right now (WRT the engine tilt and the pitching moment) seems to be absolutely correct. The thing that is missing is an explanation as to why the engine tilt reduces the nose-down moment even though the increased lever-arm for the thrust line would tend to have the exact opposite effect.
So, I would like to see the explanation included, but I've had that comment reverted (2015-04-14), so the text may still be puzzling to the next person who reads it without taking into account the proximity of the horizontal tail. The proposed wording is the following:
- "The engines are angled upward by nine degrees to increase entrained downward flow
- on the horizontal tail in order to cancel out the nose-down pitching moment they would
- otherwise generate due to being mounted above the aircraft's center of gravity, avoiding
- the need to trim the control surfaces against the force."
PoqVaUSA (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do have that book, but in a quick scan I can't find the statement that's quoted. I did notice that the photos and drawings show that the engine centerline slants down towards the tail. But in addition, the exhaust nozzle points downward. So it isn't clear to me if the angle being discussed is that of the engine centerline -- which indeed seems to be counterintuitive -- or the nozzle -- which seems just what you'd expect to produce a nose-down effect.
- Also, while your proposed wording sounds plausible, do you have a citation for it? I don't think it would be appropriate without a reference to support it. Paul Koning (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Too long and excessively detailed ..." [summary-section] tag is unfounded
A few among the coterie of self-appointed guardians of the material at hand keep taking upon themselves the restoration of the baseless "Too long ..." tag. I don't find it too long nor do I find it excessively detailed; if anything it's too short from previous hack-jobs. As it is the section is pretty much the minimum amount of text required to lay out the issues and timeline at hand regarding the future of the weapon system that is the article's subject. Such information bears directly on the system's future existence; because of its relevance this material needs to be laid out in the body of the article.
Of course if subject at hand were merely an obsolete, historical aircraft then yes, I might say that describing the particulars of the irreversible demise of such a fleet of planes would be distractive, tedious and boring, but that isn't the case here.
If you find the section too long to comprehend, don't read it; others like myself who are interested in the geopolitics that weapons systems affect appreciate the (rather modest) detail and timeline and decision factors at play. It's not as if it obfuscates anything in the rest of the article - in fact it makes much of the rather tedious acronym-laden previous text more relevant. To remove or, as is more typical with the attempts at censorship disguised as editing in Wikipedia, to threaten emasculation of highly relevant material that hasn't been stated elsewhere is to potentially render the article less informative and relevant; now what would be the point of that?
Inserting a "Too long ..." tag without first putting up for discussion any alleged evidence behind it is to engage in literary goonship masquerading as editing. Since no one has discussed, much less credibly justified, the placement of this tag, I'm removing it and request that it not be replaced until a case for it has been made without objection.
Funny, but no one threatens to remove the footnotes because they're "too long and excessively detailed" (though they're far longer and more detailed than the material at hand). That's because any reasonable person finding such lengthy and important documentation to be too long and detailed can just skip over it; so too can they with the material at hand.
Leaving be lengthy, detailed but relevant and factual material is preferable to censorship. We're not trying to recreate a Hemingway short story for print here; we're writing a factual report, and the material at issue is the whole reason the previous detailed and lengthy material is worth reading: there's an impending societal decision that will be based on it, and the text at issue informs and brings that discussion to a head.BLZebubba (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The tag only asks for for the text to be summarized, not removed/censored. The "Proposed retirement" subsection is very long and and almost as long as the service history text. This is out of balance and seems to give undue weight to an event that is only being discussed at this point. Also, Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a News service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The 'Proposed retirement' section is the very definition of WP:RECENTISM - Why should A-10 in 2013-2014 get ten times the total coverage given to the A-10 in the fifteen years beforehand? More detail can, and should be, given to the previous operational history, but its plain out of balance to be quoting full verse from every two-bit source that pops out as they happen on this issue. I've lost count of the number of times content was added that was repeating that which had already been said and explained in vast (probably excessive!) detail above; it was often just being lazily throw in without care. This isn't a news bulletin, not every news article coming out has been saying something unique/notable. There's no valid reason for there to be such a gargartian section on the politics of its retirement, dwarfing the coverage given to not one, not two, not even three, but separate 'five wars across 25 years: I cannot name one reason that ratio to be valid, yet that's how it stands in the article right now, hence why it needs cutting down. Some of it is barely notable, and some won't be notable in the long term (which is the perspective we're supposed to be writing in). Finally, multiple separate editors have been reinstating this tag, its hardly a narrow point of view. Kyteto (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your "... ten times the total coverage given to the A-10 in the fifteen years beforehand" is grossly inaccurate. But so what if it wasn't? The viability of this weapon system for the future is at least as worthy of reading as its historical performance. And where in Wikipedia's editing rules does it say that discussion of the proposed retirement of an aircraft must only be in proportion to what's already been said about the aircraft's historical use (however inadequately or melodramatically)? There's virtually nothing in the "Proposed retirement" section that's been said elsewhere in the article. I question if you understand the relevance of what's being said in this section and why it's being reported therein. Weapon systems exist only to fill a military need, and the future of that need is at least as worthy of discussion as the weapon system itself.
- While I agree that much in this section may not be noteworthy in the long run, it can be removed when the time comes i.e. when the system's retirement occurs, but for now the dates and developments noted in this section are relevant to a depiction of whether it's a current viable weapon system that's being described or an obsolete one. BLZebubba (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- ":::Your "... ten times the total coverage given to the A-10 in the fifteen years beforehand" is grossly inaccurate." On my screen, we currently have about ten lines of text dedicated to the Iraq, Afghan, and Libyan wars; or roughly three lines of text for a whole war. That's compared with in excess of 40 lines dedicated to the last six months of sensationalist announcements, proclaimiations, claims and counter-claims on the A-10's prospective future; a fairly trivial topic compared with its actual war service. Why should a whole war get three lines or less, but a single person's political wrangling alone on the retirement issue receive more coverage? It's simply not balanced or fair coverage. The A-10 was set to be cut and replaced with the A-16, a variant of the F-16, why should that solid retirement and replacement plan (aborted in the 1990s) get 1/50th of the coverage of what amounts of a huge amount of hot air over (right now) no definitive plan at all? Kyteto (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree that much in this section may not be noteworthy in the long run, it can be removed when the time comes i.e. when the system's retirement occurs, but for now the dates and developments noted in this section are relevant to a depiction of whether it's a current viable weapon system that's being described or an obsolete one. BLZebubba (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps lengthen the other sections or subdivide this section then? I found the details here a valuable resource and would have found the article significantly less valuable with an abbreviated section.107.5.194.31 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/
- Triggered by
\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposed retirement chapter, another try
I fully agree that the current chapter is highly excessive. An encyclopedia article doesn't need to document every proposal and counter-proposal, because, as already said, it's not a news aggregator. In encyclopedic sense, discussing this weapon's future doesn't mean copying the actual public discussion (most of which is hot air) - there are other websites devoted to that. Instead, I propose the following summary (I'm putting it here for discussion because it's a big change):
Proposed retirement (click "show" to read)
|
---|
The future of the A-10's service is currently uncertain, and the fleet is being slowly reduced.[1] First plans to replace it completely with more versatile aircraft, such as the close air support version of the F-16, date back to 1980s, but were abandoned for the risk of jeopardizing tactical readiness of the US Army.[2] There are currently two main lines within the USAF concerning this question: top commanders wish to retire the fleet completely, which would enable reallocating the budget to other projects, particularly the multi-purpose Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter, which is to replace the A-10 in the close air support role. They are opposed by lower-ranking officers with support of congressmen from states where the Warthogs are stationed, which emphasize its efficiency and reliability. They maintain that the A-10 is currently irreplaceable in its role.[3][4][5] Critics of the retirement plan also point out that the F-35's cost is already enormous and still rising, with the plane still unable to generate the same number of sorties as the A-10.[6][7] The long battle in the US Congress over the years resulted in numerous proposals about the future of the A-10, ranging from extending its service life until 2028 and further,[8] to immediate reduction of the fleet by almost a third.[3][9] In November 2013, 320 Warthogs had been in active use, with the their number being slowly reduced to 283 until the end of 2016.[1] A recent proposal for additional retirements has been rejected for the fiscal year 2015.[10]
|
Opinions? Note also that grammar needs to be polished, because I'm not a native speaker, I translated this from the text I wrote for :slwiki. — Yerpo Eh? 17:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- A lot of the middle ground proposals point out that some airframes have been recently refurbished so I wouldn't leave that out. Hcobb (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/March%202014/March%2012%202014/A-10-Rewinging-Continues.aspx “If we did divest the A-10 fleet, obviously we would start with the ones that haven’t had new [wings] put on them,” Fanning said.
- Seems to be a hazard of jumping into a major edit without doing the research. Hcobb (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- It probably goes without saying that the ones not yet upgraded will be retired first (either according to the current plan or an accelerated one), but according to what I read, some high commanders want to boot the entire fleet at once anyway - the upgrade is not far along and is way behind schedule, so cutting the losses wouldn't be so financially horrible, at least not compared to savings. — Yerpo Eh? 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we include a mention of how the USAF has cheated on this test? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/critics-accuse-air-force-manipulating-data-support-10-retirement/ Hcobb (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of hot air I'd want to avoid in a summary. Perhaps later, if it turns out to be a crucial factor in the final decision. — Yerpo Eh? 15:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the current situation: reduction in fleet numbers to 283 aircraft is happening now, with no relation to the retirement debate, and maintaining its service life until 2028 was a prediction before all of this, so it is not a current alternative proposal. The Air Force is trying to retire the entire A-10 fleet starting in the next fiscal year (FY 2015), and despite all the committee proposals and draft bill passages, it will not be certain until the FY 2015 Defense Authorization Act is passed and signed. According to [3] and [4], they determined that keeping the small number of re-winged planes and retiring all the rest would not save enough, and the additional savings from cancelling the wing upgrades for the rest increases savings from $3.7 billion to $4.2 billion. It is true that the A-10 has faced this argument to be replaced with fighter-bombers before, but the last time that happened Wikipedia wasn't around, so this time all information coming out has a place to go. That probably is getting to be a little excessive. It all depends on what is decided: if arguments to retire prevail, most of the information here is needed to explain the course of events; if some way is found to keep it in service for another decade or so, it will all be irrelevant and be reduced to a footnote; if some plan puts off the decision another year, we'll be back here arguing how much writing we need until another significant decision is made. Keep in mind the retirement section was a lot longer, but it was shortened before to what the first three-quarters of paragraphs are now. America789 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- The section was shortened significantly, yes, but is still way too long. Again, not every action and counter-action needs to be reported, because Wikipedia is a collection of information, but not all information - we don't have to copy the whole public debate, we should summarize. Saying that the USAF is actively trying to retire the whole fleet for financial reasons is more than enough for now, and even if their plan goes through, it will be enough to state key events and decision makers. As it is, the section looks more like a news aggregating service. — Yerpo Eh? 16:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- We defiantly don't need a running commentary on draft propositions coming through Congress; we can report on them when they actually firm up - there's literally dozens of drafts, many of which would normally end up in the trash can, on a topic; if something concrete is decided or published it becomes a lot more relevant to being on this page. But we cannot cover every draft, every interpretation of a budget proposal, or the absence of any information on the subject within agiven draft; it's entirely normal for drafts to lack information on certain aspects or events as the party behind the draft might be waiting for input from other groups or individuals, or for a consensus to emerge. Hence why we shouldn't be trying to make conclusions on draft proposals and banter in article space; there's no rush, we can wait for solid events and facts to emerge. The phrase "mountain out of a molehill", and the policy WP:NOTNEWS, both come to mind. Kyteto (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Keeping the A-10 flying by grounding the USAF
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/20/house-votes-to-block-a-10-retirement/
The point here is that James is complaining that the A-10 funding is coming at the expense of USAF readiness, which just took a big hit in the last year. Hcobb (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Technically, that's not what she complained about at all - she was asking that, if this aircraft is funded, that the funding please not be diverted from readiness - there is no proclamation anywhere that the funding was to come from readiness. While I can see that bigger picture being linked to this, it's a little excessive to cover all the potential cuts due to USAF budget restrictions on the A-10 article - there are dozens if not hundreds of what-ifs on what could and couldn't be lost. It seems like it'd probably best suited to an article more focused on USAF budget issues or something similar. I cannot see one person's suggestion of where budget cuts to the USAF budget should not fall as being particularly pertinent here - regardless of how the section has become so morbidly obese as it is. Kyteto (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
USAF "cherry-picked" details about collateral damage
No reason was given for this deletion. A mistaken cut? Hcobb (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Alternative Fuels
In any discussion of the use of alternative fuels, it would be appropriate to mention that with all petroleum based fuels such as diesel fuel, kerosene, and jet fuel, the btu per gallon is in the 140,000 range. When alcohol/methanol/ethanol fuels are proposed, the dramatically reduced btu range from 65,000 to 90,000 would mean that combustion fuel nozzles might need to be increased in diameter to assure the same level of performance. During the periods of alcohol fuel use, the range of the plane would be reduced as full tanks would be carrying fewer btu.
2015 Redeployed to Europe in light of Ukraine conflict
As I had heard there was some talk of retirement I was a bit surprised to read that the A-10 was being redeployed to Europe to counter fears of a Russian invasion. Here is the link: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-10s-return-to-europe-to-stare-down-russia-20a0d902bd86
Not sure if this is the page to mention it, or where it would be mentioned in this article. So I leave it to those more familiar with the topic.
Fired for treason
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/10/fired-for-treason-comments/25569181/
Notable here? Hcobb (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- No - although he was not actually fired for treason just for using the word in a speech, not the same thing, and has little relevance to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A-10 export?
Boeing Cejas revealed plans of export Modernized A 10 for International customers. both Flightglobal [1], and Janes [2] , I already created the Export Column about the Export, and Indian Plans to acquire the A 10, with two ref Links. If anything which is not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia please delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAJEEVJINO (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
References
Ayotte letter
This is BLP, so I can't add it myself. As I understand it the issues are:
- Decreased depot maintenance funding
- Lack of aircraft for testing squadron
- Unauthorized retirement of aircraft
Hcobb (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Air Force gives up on current retirement push
[5] The UASF has now "indefinitely delayed" retiring the A-10 fleet, which means this episode of trying to retire it is done for a while. With that, can we cut down the massive Proposed Retirement section? America789 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629035218/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q2/070629b_nr.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q2/070629b_nr.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130216142708/http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-065.pdf to http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-065.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is the front of the right wheel cover black?
This seems to be a change from first fielding, but the article doesn't seem to cover it. Hcobb (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think you need to give us a more clues as to what you have seen or what you are on about, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Best guess on my part is it's an electromagnetically passive panel with a radar detection sensor behind it. I just wrote Lockheed Martin's website for a definitive answer. Actually in my search it became apparent that there should be a section in the article about the ever upgrading sensors on the warthog. I'll get back if I get a reply. Doyna Yar (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like you are talking about the black dielectric panel at the front of the starboard wheel sponson, I could not really understand what the color of a bit of fabric that goes over the wheels when the aircraft is parked up was relevant. That said Doyna Yar is probably right it was part of the A-10C upgrade and is probably ESM related. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Overquoting
Recent changes have introduced massive, paragraph long quoted sections. Not only is the level of detail inappropriate and overwhelming for an encyclopedia article, they also introduce a serious copyvio issue in that the level of quoting may exceed that that is permissible by fair use. It needs to be massively trimmed back and rewritten.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- The longest quote that I can see is three sentences. If there are any specific cases of copyvio let me know. I'm not too familiar with the exact details of the policy. I tried to be fairly careful.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- The A-10C section that you added consists almost entirely of quotes, mainly from a single source (which is inaccessible). The total length of material copied from a source and the proportion of the original source copied or closely paraphrased matters when considering whether we are in a copyvio situation, not just the length of individual quotes (and in the context of the section, even three sentences in total from the same source is probably too long). This section needs to be rewritten to remove the extensive quoting to avoid breaching what is allowable under fair use.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Why I reverted Fnlayson's edit only to get reverted by BilCat
fnlayson performed an edit removing a few random things. The mention that the A-10 is a single seat aircraft in the lede. I don't know what that's about. He made some minor changes to the bit I added explaining CAS in the lede that I don't really care too much about one way or the other. The bit covered by his edit summary is where he cuts out my summary of the A-10's laudable performance in desert storm and the air force's acceptance of the A-10 concept. I don't really get this bit either. It's about as uncontroversial as things get. As far as I know there really is no other side to this. If I cared I'd defend the use of the word distinguished or something like it, but honestly I don't care, so if someone offers a more "neutral" wording, who cares? But the facts are that after DS the AF accepted the A-10 and abandoned it's attempts of abandoning dedicated CAS aircraft. I feel it's important for there to be a general overview of the A-10 and it's history in the intro, so I feel that that should stay in the intro. Then he moves around the listing of conflicts the A-10's been involved in. He took out the context of the evolution of cas and how the air force developed the a-10, the first dedicated cas plane. I'd like to know his reasoning for that. Also why that wasn't in the edit summary and why he didn't break up the rather large edit making things rather untidy. Yea the wording on the development of the gau 8 and the design of the a-10 around the gau-8's not great. After fnlayson's edit I was working on that and I came up with a wording that I think works. And fnlayson got rid of the one sentence description of A-10 upgrades and the current state of the A-10, which I don't understand and which fnlayson's edit summary doesn't provide any insight into. Not really as ideal as I'd like things to be if I'm brutally honest. He seems to prefer limited equipment on austere runways vs limited facilities... I could go either way on that one. Obviously bilcat's reversion of my revert is a sticky wicket as well. I'm sure he has some sort of reason for reverting a revert.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I read through your changes. They seem to fine to me. I don't think people should have to discuss everything on a talk page before making changes. So reverted it back to yours. If other's disagree with SPECIFIC parts of your change then they are free to edit them. That's how Wikipedia works. War (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Here's one example. "The A-10 was highly effective in Operation Desert Storm, the American intervention against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait convincing the Air Force that the concept of cheap, simple CAS aircraft, and the A-10 itself were sound." Where exactly is the source for this? There was no source after that or anything like that cited in the body of the article. The single-seat text is not exactly right and more accurately explained in the 2nd paragraph already. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Concur, obviously. Fnlayson's a good copy editor and summarizer, and has a sense of what belongs in a Lead section. He did give a sensible and understandable, if succinct, edit summary, and thus I restored his edits. He's improved my edits many times, and occasionally restored text that I'd reverted, usually improving too. I trust his judgment in such matters. - BilCat (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, for one, the lede's wrong. There was no A-10B. A pre-production airframe was modified to be a prototype, the YA-10B. It was briefly test flown and that was it. So yes, the YA-10B is a two seater, the A-10, though, is not, never has been, and no A-10 has even been modified to seat two as a prototype. Also, "Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force abandoned the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16." Right there. Sort of hiding in plain sight. Plus... it's the entire narrative of the paragraph, although I suppose it could be argued that it could possibly be made more explicit. I was actually trying to broaden the lede. Expand it so that it covers things like, the current status of the A-10. The history of the A-10. Simple things like, how many seats are there.
- Concur, obviously. Fnlayson's a good copy editor and summarizer, and has a sense of what belongs in a Lead section. He did give a sensible and understandable, if succinct, edit summary, and thus I restored his edits. He's improved my edits many times, and occasionally restored text that I'd reverted, usually improving too. I trust his judgment in such matters. - BilCat (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe fnlayson would deign to explain why he removed the mention of the A-10's performance in DS, and what argument he had against the contention I posted earlier "But the facts are that after DS the AF accepted the A-10 and abandoned it's attempts of abandoning dedicated CAS aircraft. I feel it's important for there to be a general overview of the A-10 and it's history in the intro, so I feel that that should stay in the intro." rather than... I'm not quite sure what is argument is. He's trying to argue that a single small part of his edit is justified because he thinks it's not supported in the article when it is? How is that anything more than a... well... misguided argument against a single point? And, looking at the current version, it look like fnlayson's undermined the only point he was trying to make by adding a version of that sentence back in. Honestly I'm pretty confused. Plus, wrong about the only other point fnlayson made. So... 0 for 2? Wrong on all accounts? Do I win in a forefeit then or what? I'm not really clear on how this is working. In retrospect, I suppose, fnlayson's argument didn't address the topic at hand, instead, focused on two specific points. Then it sort of blew both arguments. And here we are. I guess the consensus seems to be that the one paragraph on desert storm should be expanded, and should have more analysis. Was that the point fnlayson was trying to make? Has that what all this hassle and effort has been about? Next time you want me to expand a section, maybe just sort of ask directly. Or, what the hell? Maybe add something to an article. Expand an article. Add content to the lede of an article. Improve the lede. Pick up a shovel, a hammer. Put the hammer to the nail, you know? Build.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyvio in the A-X section, or the book is using wording from this article.
I was looking up a source because it's easier to complain than to put in effort I suppose and found that the A-X section might be possible copyright violation, or the book could be using text from this article. I'd actually be surprised if it's copyvio, but who knows "The Aviation History" Relly Victoria Petrescu, Florian Ion Petrescu BoD – Books on Demand, 2013 Around page 29TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Re-assess GA status
Pretty much everything about this article is screaming re-assess GA status to me. The operational history section's a joke. Tags are popping up everywhere. There are plenty of other problems. Oh, and it seems to have come into vogue to trash the prose of the article to boot. It looks like there's no option other than re-assessment and almost certain delisting.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Community Reassessment
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review
- Result: Kept per resolved comments below Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The killer I think is the history/operational history section. Iirc the entire desert shield/desert storm coverage is only one paragraph. The tags and banners are another issue. I think the banner can be dealt with by whitelisting those links as they're government links, so copyright shouldn't be an issue. I also have some issues with the prose, style, and some of the facts. For instance the gun program that produced the GAU-8 was separate from the A-10 program. One of three proposed guns were central to the design of the A-10. The flight competition was already over and fairchild was moving into production before the gau-8 was even chosen. Plus there are some sections that could see some expansion or improvement. Sometimes it's hard to tell how articles ever got high assessments in the first place.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: I've already patched up the Intro, which was the only really bad part of the article. The gulf war section certainly needs to be expanded, but again, that seems like a relatively easy fix. I think our time is better spent with the minor patches this needs than pondering previous editor's mental states. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: The article appears to be well cited and reasonably well written. The issues brought up in the reassessment appear to be something that could be fixed without delisting the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I see no real fault in this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I've just taken a look at the article, thinking perhaps to close this reassessment, but there has been active editing to it over the past few months, and from what I see at the present time this article does not meet some of the GA criteria. Beyond the fact that there are several bare URLs, which falls short of the verifiability requirements, there are a number of places where it jarringly switches from past to future to past tense, notably in the Upgrades subsections, and it talks about events that were supposed to have been completed in years that are now in the past yet there is no update of the article to indicate that either the upgrade was successfully completed or that it has taken much longer to complete. (One example: the conversion from A-10A to A-10C.) There are also places where the prose is unclear, in part due to introducing unexplained terms. For example, in the "Production" subsection the use of "WS. 23" is confusing not merely because the term is not explained, but because it looks like the sentence ends after "WS." There are also two mentions of TUSK; the second is the one that explains the program as a 2016-announced modernization, and seems to contradict the earlier usage, which talks about initial fittings in 2011. There is also the occasional problematic sentence, such as at the end of the penultimate Hog-Up paragraph.
The thing about a reassessment is that issues brought up during it (such as in the initial post) can certainly be fixed during the course of the reassessment: the whole point here is to note an article's shortcomings and get it back to GA level. However, if these shortcomings vis a vis the GA criteria are pointed out and the article is not brought back into compliance, then the article is delisted. It isn't kept at a GA because it could be fixed, but only if it is fixed. TeeTylerToe, Maury Markowitz, K.e.coffman, can this article's current issues be fixed? It's certainly B-class even as is, and has a great deal going for it, but it needs some work. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset:, before we proceed, are you aware of the history of this article prior to the listing here? If not, I'd suggest perusing the bottom half of the talk page and edit history circa April. You'll forgive me for saying that I believe this GAR is is the result of an attempt to take a talk-page dispute out-of-band when the editors there disagreed.
- Now you have raised some actual issues, but honestly, they strike me as relatively minor. As such, if you can provide a bullet list, I would be happy to address them. But in the short term, I would do so only in the context of the talk page of the article, not in the context of this GAR, which I will now officially ask to be closed. I would have done so long ago if I had any inkling it was still open. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Maury Markowitz, I hadn't been aware of the history of the article, nor, for that matter, of TeeTylerToe's history—he's currently got over five months left of a six month block, and for what I can tell there was forum-shopping involved in that block. I would not be surprised if this GAR stemmed from the dispute you mention.
- That said, I came here in good faith about six hours ago thinking to close this, and instead found genuine issues with the article that clearly need fixing. I've very sorry, but now that they've been identified, they'll have to be fixed within this context before this can close. I'm happy to leave it at the above list of issues, and if you're willing to fix them—I'm happy to help with the non-technical side of things—this will indeed be ready for closure as kept. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Don't worry BM, I didn't think your post was anything but GF. If you post the list I will be happy to address the issues - and have already started. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep, but fix up The bones of this article are certainly GA class and I'm not seeing a reason to delist. However, the article does need a tidy up. Some suggestions for this are:
- To review and simplify the material on fatigue-related issues in the "Development" section: this material is too complex, and is written in language which isn't accessible to the average reader. The unformated url references are also obviously problematic, but are easily fixed.
- The lengthy quotes in the "A-10C" section aren't the best way of presenting this information
- "Critics have said" - who are these critics?
- "and the F-35's rising costs" - I believe that the costs are now going down Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The intro's last paragraph needs more information on the future of the A-10, its been well established at this point that the plan insofar as the USAF is/was concerned is to replace the plane with the F-25, and its also been well established that there are several groups and many mission and financial related reasons as to why that move is seen as controversial. This should be touched on in all respects in the third intro paragraph (though I note that the entire debate over the matter should be covered to its fullest in its own section in the article). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another editor added a sentence to the last paragraph of the lead to better cover the replacement situation and contentious of this. Does that seem to cover it fairly and adequately? Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fnlayson, one problem I see there is that the potential end of life date given in the lead is 2028, and that's based on a 2007 source. A lot has occurred since then, including the wing-replacement program; the discussion about that program puts that (potential) ending date at 2035, and there's a comment from Boeing positing a 2040 date, though that's their opinion, not when the government might wind down the program. Can this be looked at, and the lead perhaps modified if appropriate? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- is the section Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Operators needed in the article? This appears to be intricate detail and a WP:DIRECTORY of all units that use or have used the aircraft. I'm not sure what value it adds to the article. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's fairly standard. A separate article could be justified though. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Operators section is not that long compared to other military aircraft articles I've worked on. I can give some examples including GA articles, if interested. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Issues still needing to be addressed
Per the earlier discussion with Maury Markowitz, here are the issues I believe still need to be addressed in the article to return it to GA status, a number of which I've mentioned in less detail above. (I've not incorporated ones mentioned by others above, which should also be taken care of if they haven't been already.)
Background
- The Burton source at the end of the first sentence of paragraph 2 should include a page parameter. (This may need to split off from its other use at the beginning of Gulf War and Balkans, which may well use a different page from that same source.)
Upgrades
- It's unfortunate that the opening sentence is identical to that of the fourth paragraph of source 42 (http://www.military.com/equipment/a-10-thunderbolt-ii), and the sentence after it deals with the same Pave Penny upgrade in similar words. The article phrasing needs to be revised.
Upgrades: HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program
- first paragraph: I'd add a wikilink for Grumman Aerospace [Corporation]
- third paragraph:
Three plans were explored, replacing all the wings with new ones was the cheapest, costing $741 million to implement, and $1.72 billion over the life of the program.
What were the three plans? Only one of them is mentioned, and if you're going to mention that there were three, say what they were. Also, what is involved in implementing vs. the life of the program that runs a billion bucks? - fourth paragraph: this is frankly a jumble of facts, snippets, and hype, and doesn't quite add up. The contract awarding sentence should state how many the initial order (out of an apparent max of 242 wing sets) came to. Was the max eventually reached? Was the contract revised to order still more wing sets, and when does it expire? It could be made more clear (if this is what happened) that the first two wing sets from the June 2007 order were installed and in use in November 2011. The sentence
Re-winging improves mission readiness, decreases maintenance costs, and allows the A-10 to be operated up to 2035.
reads as if it comes from a sales brochure or a briefing book, and needs a complete rewrite into encyclopedic prose, if it's still accurate (this is the only instance of a 2035 date). The sentenceThis was organized under the thick-skin urgent spares kitting (TUSK) program.
has unclear antecedents: I'd move the TUSK info earlier, and state specifically when it started for the A-10 (and if it isn't A-10A specific, when the A-10A was added to it).
Upgrades: A-10C
- Earlier, it said a total of 715 A-10As were delivered. In the first paragraph here, it says the entire fleet of A-10As was upgraded to A-10Cs, and the total upgraded was 125. The natural conclusion is that 590 A-10As had been removed from service (or were destroyed) by this point, since otherwise they would have become A-10Cs. However, this contradicts the Design section's Modernization subsection, which opens by stating that
The A-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program will update 356 A-10/OA-10s to the A-10C variant
. Which is the correct number? - At the end of the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, the inline source (44) is a bare URL. Please fix this.
- The bulk of the second paragraph is a quote that needs to be paraphrased. (Is this talking about the IFFCC that was mentioned at the end of the first paragraph? I wasn't sure. And there's probably too much detail in the quote.)
- To start the third paragraph, why not say that the two helmet systems were considered, with Raytheon getting the contract? As it is, the after-the-fact mention of HMCS is like reopening an already-closed subject. (Or don't mention the unsuccessful system at all.)
- Later in that paragraph, a Suite 8 upgrade is mentioned for the first time, but as being continued. This is the first mention of any Suite. For context, it makes sense to mention that there have been several suites of software upgrades, and that the AF planned to discontinue them, but Suite 8 was ordered to continue. However, this is sourced to a blog; what makes this blog a reliable source? (I note with interest that it quotes a general who gives the number of A-10s as 340 as of early 2014, based on a Defense News article.)
Design: Modernization
- The opening sentence uses future tense. I thought all of the A-10A to A-10C upgrades were completed years ago, which argues for past tense. Please make sure this uses the correct tense.
Operational history: Future
- Fourth paragraph: the use of "will" in the
Retirement has been deferred
sentence is surprisingly definite for a plane where future plans seem to change with a certain regularity. And the sentenceRetirement has been deferred until 2022 when F-35s will begin replacing it on a squadron-by-squadron basis
doesn't agree with what source 128 says, which is that the "final retirement" would be in 2022 (all planes retired); source 129 similarly gives the retirement as happening between 2018 and 2022. However, this is the Air Force's budget proposal, and congress has proved resistant to retiring the A-10 as early as the AF wants; is this still true? (Has that 2017 budget even been passed yet?) Given the available sourcing, I don't see how you can reliably go beyond something along the lines of "the Air Force's latest budget proposal envisions replacing the A-10 with F-35s on a squadron-by-squadron basis, concluding with its full retirement in 2022".
That's what I've found that I believe needs updating for the article to be back at GA status. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've been working to fix or address the issues above. Either the 125 upgrade was wrong or incorrectly worded. Jane's states some 300 were upgraded. But I have been unable to find the actual date for completion of the PE upgrade program to add to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- The last PE upgrade was completed in 2011. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe the issues brought up by User:BlueMoonset above have largely been addressed now. But I am going back through the article to verify. Any help is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: I beleive the issues brought up here have been fixed or addressed now. Please close this months long review. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, I intend to close this review as "keep" as it appears that the issues raised have been dealt with. @BlueMoonset: can you please let me know if you are happy that your concerns have been addressed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- AustralianRupert, thanks for asking. I just checked through all the sections of my review, and a number of issues have not yet been dealt with, so I would not be happy with this being closed until they are either fixed or a reasonable explanation of why they do not need to be is proffered. In particular:
- Upgrades: HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program: none of the comments regarding the problematic fourth paragraph appear to have been addressed, and I was unusually blunt in my assessment of the issues I found. This clearly needs work, and is far from the GA "clear and concise" standard.
- Upgrades: A-10C: source 44 remains a bare URL and still needs fixing; now that the old second paragraph has been removed, the Suite 8 issues in what is the new second paragraph still remain, and the prose needs a bit of work as well. This new paragraph seems to be a combination of three projects that do not go together at all well. I'm still wondering how we get from software (Suite 8) to a removing a pylon that had housed Pave Penny (hardware).
- Operational history: Future: while the fourth paragraph has changed "will" to "are to", which is an improvement, my point about the sources saying that the retirement was scheduled to take place between 2018 and 2022 seems to have been ignored, and it still says that the retirement is to begin in 2022. Either some new sources are needed if events have overtaken the old ones, or the article needs to better reflect its existing source material.
- AustralianRupert, thanks for asking. I just checked through all the sections of my review, and a number of issues have not yet been dealt with, so I would not be happy with this being closed until they are either fixed or a reasonable explanation of why they do not need to be is proffered. In particular:
- G'day, I intend to close this review as "keep" as it appears that the issues raised have been dealt with. @BlueMoonset: can you please let me know if you are happy that your concerns have been addressed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Until these are addressed, I don't see how this review can come to a valid "keep" conclusion and close. I'd love for this reassessment to be done, but we're not there yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for the update. I will be going away on holidays as of about 36 hours from now, so if the issues aren't dealt with by then, I will just come back and review sometime around 31 Dec or so and see where we are at. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz, Nick-D, Iazyges, Sturmvogel 66, and Peacemaker67: Pinging a bunch of editors who have either commented here, or who have experience with aircraft articles. This review has been dragging on for quite awhile. Is anyone able to address these final points? I'd help if I could, but frankly box kites confuse me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I had a crack at trying to address the issues, but doubt I was successful. Please feel free to revert if my changes aren't helpful. These are my edits: [6]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I took a crack as well. I believe I improved the portion to do with the wing procurement, information was a little confusing but I think I figured it out. Boeing was awarded a contract for X wings, with options up to Y. The reason the wings were ordered was so they wouldn't need to expand the SLEP program. I am not 100% sure if that means every wing has been refurbished, therefore the program doesn't need to exist anymore? That would be my guess, but I never saw it explicitly written out. Let me know if I am reading these articles wrong, I added a new source that clarified the options better. Kees08 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I had a crack at trying to address the issues, but doubt I was successful. Please feel free to revert if my changes aren't helpful. These are my edits: [6]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz, Nick-D, Iazyges, Sturmvogel 66, and Peacemaker67: Pinging a bunch of editors who have either commented here, or who have experience with aircraft articles. This review has been dragging on for quite awhile. Is anyone able to address these final points? I'd help if I could, but frankly box kites confuse me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for the update. I will be going away on holidays as of about 36 hours from now, so if the issues aren't dealt with by then, I will just come back and review sometime around 31 Dec or so and see where we are at. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Until these are addressed, I don't see how this review can come to a valid "keep" conclusion and close. I'd love for this reassessment to be done, but we're not there yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
What else specifically needs fixed and looked at? Can we get a checklist going below? Kees08 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good question. The issues pointed by BlueMoonset just above have been worked and seem to be addressed now. This seems like beating a dead horse, at least to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment. This is somewhat of a small thing...but I have no idea what "loiter time" is. I think I know, but am not certain and the concept sure seems to be important regarding the development of this aircraft and so is part of why this aircraft is notable. But the term is not defined or Wikilinked and I am thinking I might not be the only reader who wouldn't know - so a defitnion or note or Wikilink should be added. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- The general term Loitering seems common, but the Loiter (aeronautics) link was added to be sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: all the issues I and others have raised seem to have been addressed. I don't see that there's any reason to keep this reassessment open unless further issues are noted. We need an uninvolved editor to evaluate whether this is ready to be closed; pinging Wizardman to see whether he'd be willing to be that potential closer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Why are editors inserting an OR narrative that the A-10 design was a revolutionary tabula rasa design?
Can someone tell me where this OR narrative is coming from? How did the US Air Force develop the A-10 from fast jet fighters and fighter bombers like the F-100, F-104, and F-4? Fast jets have small guns, they go fast, they tend to have swept wings, they fly fast at high altitudes. How did the air force develop close air support doctrine utilizing none of those things in the 1960s from apparently whole cloth? Why is the focus of the A-10 not on dive bombing, a method that had been developed of dropping bombs on small moving targets, or troop positions? Why does the A-10 have an armored cockpit when the original A-1, the F-100, the F-104, and F-4 don't have armored cockpits? Why did the air force choose a 30mm gun? Was there any experimentation in using different guns in close air support before the summer of love? The A-10 is slow, but did that lack of speed become a problem over time? Why did an air force enamored of fast, high altitude jets with no guns suddenly develop a slow, low altitude jet with a huge gun? What was the Air Force's experience with tactical bombing and CAS in recent conflicts like korea and vietnam? The A-10 was developed as a cost effective, updated replacement of the circa 1945 A-1. Why don't we strip the article of all mention of the A-1? The A-37? Is that a motorway from london to birmingshiretondon on essex-wye? The A-7 was examined as the production line was still up and running. The air force examined using the A-7 to replace the A-1 but chose not to. Why? Was the A-7 not enough like the F-100, F-104, and F-4? Why was the air force afraid that the army chyenne could threaten funding for the air force's fast jets? The Air force is looking at something at least as effective as the 1945 A-1 skyraider in the mid-late 1960s? What? Were they just listening to a lot of "timewarp", or reading too much HG welles? And where did this come from? Suddenly at the very end of the history section the air force has decided to do something that the article hasn't done anything at all to explain that's come completely and totally out of left field. What does a 1945 A-1 have to do with F-4s? F-100s? F-104s? Didn't the air force replace the F-4 with the F-15? What article is this? Where is this narrative coming from? Has anyone considered just randomly removing whole paragraphs from the article to see if that improves it? They have? Good. Is it working? A big problem we've identified with this article is that it has poor coverage of a lot of the details of the A-10. We've been cutting a lot of stuff. I think we just need to keep cutting more and more stuff, and that will make the coverage better and better. Someone asked me the other day why they couldn't find any more information on wikipedia about the A-10s that he'd read about that were deployed to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, and asked me if this is how websites like wikipedia and history in general forgets things like the role the A-10 played in the middle east conflicts of the early 20th century. I think we should report this guy to a aviation project friendly admin. He's clearly a dangerous subversive.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Care to be more concise? In that large single-paragraph block of text, I cannot tell what your specific grievance is, or with whom. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why are multiple editors removing content about the history of tactical/cas aircraft since, say, the A-1 was introduced in 1945? How american tactical/cas aircraft evolved from the A-1 to it's successor the A-10. The wider history of tactical/cas aircraft worldwide. The A-10 draws from the A-1 but it also draws from other planes. Where did the armored bathtub concept originate? Why did tactical air combat shift from dive bombing to strafing with large, say, 30mm cannons? How did the AF settle on the 30mm requirement? That's the general thrust. Also, these removals don't seem to be addressing the problems this article has of having poor coverage of things like the role of the A-10 in different conflicts it was involved in.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, your post heading "questions" are so mixed with what I assume is sarcasm that it's hard times tell what exactly your issues are. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and we don't need to go in depth on the whole history of a general topic (such as CAS or military rifles) in every article about a specific aircraft/weapon or sub-type. I concur with User:Maury Markowitz's removals per his edit summaries, and have reverted your restorations. Btw, there's a very good reason why we don't cover "the role the A-10 played in the middle east conflicts of the early 20th century" -- the A-10 didn't exist then! Also, restoring text related to WWII aircraft does nothing to help coverage of recent conflicts. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- You think that a paragraph that says that the A-X design specified a 30mm based on the cannon birds of the luftwaffe that germany developed from experience of their condor division in the spanish civil war which motivated them to switch the focus of their attack aircraft tactics from bombing with dive bombers to strafing with aircraft with progressively larger and larger cannons? That's what you think is the whole history of a general topic? Basically one sentence that directly explains the context of the A-X design requirement? Particularly when this reflects the opinion of reliable sources? Side note, why does the F4 article bother putting the F4 phantom in context? Don't they know that there are only so many ones and zeros? What is this? Some sort of encyclopedia? Why leave information about unrelated fast, high altitude fighters while removing information about the A-1 skyraider, one of the chief influences on the design of the A-10, and the aircraft that A-X designs were measured against? What influence did the F-4 have on the A-10? Did the A-X measure proposed designs against the F-4? I noticed how much you look at edit summaries and how little you concern yourself about the actual content that you do and don't rollback. I don't know why you're bringing up military rifles, but now that you bring that up, it seems clear that there are serious flaws with the assault rifle article. Maybe something you failed to notice in your study of edit summaries, something you seem to have decided is less important than your hasty rollback duties. It also seems like the typo article could do with some of your attention. You could familiarize yourself with the concept. "Also, restoring text related to WWII aircraft does nothing to help coverage of recent conflicts." If you'll read what I wrote you'll find that you got the wrong end of the stick. What I said is that maury removing information about the 1945 skyraider did nothing to improve the article. Maybe you can read the actual edits and if you do actually want to contest the consensus that existed until you decided apparently based on edit summaries to rollback everything blindly then I guess we're headed to third opinion or dispute resolution or something. Now that you mention it though, that assault rifle article is an absolute mess. So I guess there's still a chance that I'll be able to get something done in the near future.
- To be honest, your post heading "questions" are so mixed with what I assume is sarcasm that it's hard times tell what exactly your issues are. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and we don't need to go in depth on the whole history of a general topic (such as CAS or military rifles) in every article about a specific aircraft/weapon or sub-type. I concur with User:Maury Markowitz's removals per his edit summaries, and have reverted your restorations. Btw, there's a very good reason why we don't cover "the role the A-10 played in the middle east conflicts of the early 20th century" -- the A-10 didn't exist then! Also, restoring text related to WWII aircraft does nothing to help coverage of recent conflicts. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, a long string of questions, coupled with sarcasm and snide remarks, only confuses what your actually trying to say, along with TLDNR. So if I'm confused about what you wrote, even after re-reading it, duh. If you think the article needs more coverage on recent conflicts, then take productive steps to address those issues, like doing some research and adding content. If that isn't something you're willing or able to do, that's fine, but there are better ways to address this than what you've done here so far. If you can't be succinct and civil in what you're saying/asking, the DR isn't really going to help you much. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's it? You don't understand why the su-25 article has, for instance, "(shturmovaya) aviation during the 1940s"? Why the su-25 article puts the su-25 in a historical context, why it puts it's development in context, rather than explicitly taking it out of context as maury did? Why the f-4 phantom article has a origins section, and the origin for the f-4 fighter bomber focus on fighter bombers the way that maury edited the a-10 background section of the a-10 attack aircraft to focus on the f-4 fighter bomber. Fair enough. Do you have a preference for third opinion or drn? In my experience third opinion doesn't generate any third opinions, and is useless, which isn't to say it's any less effective than drn.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, a long string of questions, coupled with sarcasm and snide remarks, only confuses what your actually trying to say, along with TLDNR. So if I'm confused about what you wrote, even after re-reading it, duh. If you think the article needs more coverage on recent conflicts, then take productive steps to address those issues, like doing some research and adding content. If that isn't something you're willing or able to do, that's fine, but there are better ways to address this than what you've done here so far. If you can't be succinct and civil in what you're saying/asking, the DR isn't really going to help you much. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again with the wall of questions. I get the feeling you're not trying to be understood, but rather to so overwhelm us so that we'll just go away. I frankly have better ways of wasting my time than spending it at DRN. - BilCat (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've listed it at third opinion. See you at drn in a few days.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again with the wall of questions. I get the feeling you're not trying to be understood, but rather to so overwhelm us so that we'll just go away. I frankly have better ways of wasting my time than spending it at DRN. - BilCat (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Third opinion
First off, TeeTylerToe, you might want to read WP:TLDR. More importantly, I removed this entry from WP:3O because, frankly, you said yourself that multiple editors are involved; and 3O is for disputes between only two editors (also, why did you even list this at 3O when above you said that you are against that forum?). On that same note, I also wouldn't advise listing this at WP:DRN because it appears that this issue had been resolved before you even got involved, so this is thus borderline pointy judgment. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maury didn't respond to the talk page discussion. Only BilCat and I seem to be involved in the dispute. What point am I trying to make?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)