Talk:Rockwell B-1 Lancer/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 01:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at first glance, I could pass this as a GA. But I'll be nit-picky, as usual .

 On hold for seven days from 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC) for a few remaining points to be addressed.
  • As all of the issues have been addressed, I'm passing this article as a GA. It meets every criterion listed here easily. If anyone has FA ambitions, I would recommend a peer review or A class review with WP:MILHIST so others may offer advice and suggest fixes for things I may have missed. Thanks to all who participated in the review. Airplaneman ✈ 17:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Hmm... a bit short for my liking. Given the length of the article, I would like to see just a bit more; see Boeing B-52 Stratofortress's lead for an example. It is not much longer, but mentions facts such as commands served and nicknames. I think a mention of the aircrafts' first combat mission would fit in the lead as well. Adding this info could help beef up the second paragraph of the lead, as well.
    • Added some text. Is 3 paragraphs long now and has room for some more details. -fnlayson (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is sufficient. Striking my comment as it is now taken care of…

Development[edit]

Background
  • "The Valkyrie was a six-engine bomber that could fly very high" - how high? Try "The Valkyrie was a six-engine bomber that could fly as high as x feet" or a similar structure.
  • About 70,000 ft. Exact altitude is not that important there. Reworded it some. -fnlayson (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the first sentence in the second paragraph is supposed to mean: "The USAF Strategic Air Command (SAC) begun moving to low-level penetration, greatly reduces radar detection distances and, at that time SAMs, were ineffective against low-flying aircraft."
  • Also in the second paragraph, the verb tense is inconsistent. For example: "Terrain shields the bomber from the radar's line-of-sight." Next sentence: " Low-altitude flight also made the bombers difficult to detect from higher flying aircraft, as radar systems of that generation could not "look down" due to the clutter from ground reflections." Please pick one to stick with.
  • Fixes made, reference asked for.
  • Past tense was used there for things that were of that era and present tense for things are still true. I shortened and rewrote that to try and clarify. -fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good; I've stricken the things that have been dealt with. Just an unsourced statement to deal with now.
I couldn't find a reference for the B-52 long runway part, so I removed it. Was not really needed there anyway. -fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this section now looks fine.
Design studies
  • Looks good.
Program delayed
B-1A program
  • Edits made.
  • Second paragraph, penultimate sentence: "A fourth prototype, built to production standards, was ordered in the FY 1976 budget." - I'm assuming FY stands for fiscal year? It took me a second to figure it out, so writing it out would be better.
New problems and cancellation
  • "A small number of B-52s range could launch hundreds of ALCMs, saturating the defense." - the word "range" seems out of place here.
  • Otherwise, looks good.
Shifting priorities
  • Tweaks and a citation needed tag
  • "The U.S. strategy to this point was containment and a conventional as well as nuclear war in Europe," - please define containment.
  • "While gaming a USSR-led invasion of Iran from Afghanistan, then considered (incorrectly) to be a major Soviet goal," - how is the word "gaming" used here?
B-1B program

Design[edit]

I'm not quite sure what kind of baffles they are, the kind that dampen sound or as part of a heat exchanger. Does anybody know which one? Kyteto (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are vanes in the intake duct. Can't explain it any better what's there now.. -fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The B-1A's engine was modified slightly to produce the GE F101-102, with an emphasis on durability, and increased efficiency" - again, improved as compared to what?
    • Is another B-1B to B-1A comparison like others in the section. Clarified. -fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1995 on, the B-1B Block D upgrade added a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver." - unreferenced (third to last paragraph)
  • "The Lancer has an additional Doppler tail-warning radar to detect aircraft or missiles approaching from the rear." - unreferenced (penultimate paragraph)
Upgrades

Operational history[edit]

Strategic Air Command
  • Copyedit
  • I've added two citation needed tags.
Addressed
Conventional role
  • Edits
  • "During OEF, the B-1 improved its mission capable rate to 79%" - please define
  • "world records for speed, payload, distance, and time-to-climb in different aircraft weight classes." - how many difference classes?
  • "The B-1B underwent a series of flight tests using a 50/50 mix of synthetic and petroleum fuel" - when?
The text immediately following the ';' states the date of one such test, and then goes on to describe another. Is this okay as it is? Kyteto (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Airplaneman ✈ 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variants[edit]

  • Fixes made
  • I see two instances of the phrase "at altitude". I assume this means "cruising altitude", although I'm not sure everyone would know that.
  • "For the air-to-air role, the addition of an active electronically-scanned array radar and changes to several existing hardpoints to carry air-to-air missiles." is not a sentence.
Well "at altitude" means something like cruising altitude, something above low-level for sure. I have not yet found anything in my books to be more specific [for the B-1] there.. -fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it would be nice to clarify, but it is fine as it is, as well. Striking for now.
  • I meant specific for the B-1 above. Is better now, on to other issues. -fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operators[edit]

  • Looks good.

Survivors[edit]

  • "B-1B (s/n 83-0071, Lot II) Spit Fire is on static display near the main gate at Tinker Air Force Base. This aircraft was one of two that suffered an in-flight engine failure in 1990 that led to grounding of the fleet." - unreferenced. Otherwise, section looks good.

Accidents and incidents[edit]

Crashes
  • My edits
  • "The crew used the escape capsule to leave the bomber, but the parachute deployed improperly and the pilot, Rockwell civilian test pilot Doug Benefield, was killed on impact." - since the rest of the crew was safe, it seems, was it only Doug's parachute that deployed improperly? If so, "The crew used the escape capsule to leave the bomber, but Rockwell civilian test pilot Doug Benefield, was killed on impact when his parachute deployed improperly." or something similar would make for a better-worded sentence.
    • That accident involved a B-1A with escape capsule. I believe Benefield's side hit the ground first. Update: added some details to the entry. -fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The review board found that the bomber struck the ground while decreasing speed and making an abrupt turn to evade a threat." - what exactly is a threat?
No idea. Maybe a simulated missile or something. Sources only say something like turning sharply to avoid a threat. -fnlayson (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; OK with me.
Other notable accidents and incidents
  • Edits made.
  • "experienced an explosion as the engines reached military power" - what is military power?
According to the Wikipedia disambig page, it is "The maximum power setting of a military jet aircraft". I've heard its use beforehand, it is a real world term in usage within the USAF, though it is a little bit obscure. Kyteto (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grounding of the B-1Bs not on nuclear alert" - please link/define nuclear alert.

Specifications (B-1B)[edit]

Notable appearances in media[edit]

  • Looks good :).

Miscellany[edit]

  • Images all captioned, look good.
    • In the "Survivors" section, a caption states: "A B-1B on display for family and friends at Ellsworth AFB, 2003". Is the part in bold necessary?
    • File:B-1b underside 1982.jpg seems to have an incorrect name. [now File:B-1A underside 1982.jpg.]
    • File:RIAT2004-B1B.jpg needs licensing tag fixes.
    • The photo gallery meets all aspects of WP:IG, and there is a commons link in the external links section. My only concern is that all of those images will contribute to slower loading times for people with slow internet.
      • Captions adjusted and gallery removed. I was waiting on the gallery images to be moved to Commons so they would not be lost. The other 2 image items still needs to be addressed.. -fnlayson (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tagged "B-1b underside 1982.jpg" for renaming and fixed template in "RIAT2004-B1B.jpg". -fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everything now looks fine.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rockwell_B-1_Lancer/GA1&oldid=850859516"