Talk:DC-10 Air Tanker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDC-10 Air Tanker was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review[edit]

I have put on the article for hold. Improve on these and could be reviewed again.It has been withdrawn.

Responses to the concerns are inserted in green text.

  1. Manual of Style: Pass'
It has correct grammar and spelling. It is also not confusing and does not have so much jargon in it.
  1. Verifability: Weak Fail
I have tested the sources:
  • 2 sources were "broken links"
  • Only one broken link found, and removed. All other links are operable and have been tested as of this edit.
  • All of them are websites, most being news updates
  • I'm not sure I understand the issue here. All are reputable 3rd party secondary sources. That's the kind of refs we're supposed to have. I've added a few more, as well as 2 ELs, including a link to an NPR radio news report covering the aircraft.
I think these parts could be easily fixed, though.
  1. Coverage: Fail
I believe this is the major problem.
  • Does not have statistics, such as accelation and such
  • I have added the specifications section from the DC-10 article pertaining to this aircraft. You'll have to live with the specs offered, as "acceleration" is not a standard aircraft spec.
  • Also, some parts are way far too short. Let's expand a bit
  • Which parts are too short? Please specify. Please also note that this article is about a specific aircraft, and we already have an extensive article, which is linked, about the type of aircraft."
This parts are the pain, so getting to work on these will be efficient
  1. Neutrality: Pass
No problems with point-of-views
  1. Stability: Weak Fail
It's not vandalized so often. However, AKradecki made most of the part in a day. I'm not sure if this can show stability.
I'm not sure how to address that...this article started as a stub in July, 2006, and has grown bit by bit as the new aircraft has garnered continuing media coverage. If the reviewers simply want the artilce to sit and exist for a period of time before another review, that's fine, just specifiy how long.
  1. Images: Pass
No problems with fair use.

Good luck next time! --Hirohisat Talk 06:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Well, it's been long time coming, but here it is:

Response: completed items are noted in green and in-work or on-hold for resolution items are in purple. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wide-body" in lead - wikilink for significance?
    • Done.
  • Don't forget to use non-breaking spaces between values and their units.
    • Hmmm...not sure what to do with this, as the spacing is automatic because the {{convert}} template is used for these, and it automatically sets the spacing. Suggestions?
  • While it's great to have a free image, I'd be tempted, for the sake of this article, to modify it (the licence allows for it) so you focus on the aircraft rather than the massive plume of water coming out of it. Just an idea, see how it goes? Then you could create an infobox which would take the spec section out of the article and, while it repeats the DC-10 spec, would be a good thing for the article, up top near the lead.
    • Replaced image with one that focuses more on the aircraft. Moved water drop photo down. I'm leaving it in because it's the water drop capability that makes this aircraft so unique. If it wasn't for the water, this would be just another DC-10 rotting in the Mojave scrapyard.
  • Development section seems to be a collection of single-sentence paragraphs - almost like a trivia list without the bullets - try to write as prose.
  • I'm confused - the aircraft was "developed as a joint venture under the name of 10 Tanker Air Carrier ..." etc but the aircraft was "originally delivered to National Airlines in 1975, and subsequently flew for Pan Am, American Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and Omni." - so presumably it wasn't developed to fight fires, it was developed to fly passengers and was subsequently converted to drop water?
    • While I'd assume this would be intuitive, I've cleaned up the wording to make it more obvious what is meant.Kmmontandon 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...is computer controlled by the flight crew..." computer controlled or flight crew controlled?
    • One would assume that the flight crew is controlling the aircraft by way of computer. I think this is too clear to require editing.Kmmontandon 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref [4] needs to move per WP:CITE.
  • "...an initial attack aircraft..." - most people feel attack would be something different then what I assume is meant here - expand and clarify.
    • This is a common aerial firefighting term. I've wikilinked it over to the article where the term is discussed and defined. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last two sentences of Development need to be merged into the prose.
  • Use en-dash to separate years.
    • Done.
  • Avoid "wasn't" - use "was not".
    • Done.
  • Be consistent using CDF or CAL FIRE - better still, don't use them at all!
    • Consistized to CAL FIRE. Using this one because that's the preferred designation that the Department uses and which is used predominantly in the media as well. Not sure how I could not use it at all, as CAL FIRE is the contracting agency from the state that the aircraft is leased to, and is legally the "operator" of the aircraft.
  • "The second usage was during the Rico Fire and the Horse Fire later in the same month, as well as the Columbia Complex Fire in Washington. " - none of these linked fires have articles so it diminishes their usefulness - to a non-expert this sentence becomes meaningless.
    • I've generalized this sentence a bit, removing the individual CA fires. Given the size of the Columbia Complex fire (109,000 acres), there's a really good chance that a wiki article will be written about this one, so if you don't mind, I'd prefer to leave it in, as it's a notable fire and 910's use against it was notable (first and only use outside of California).
  • "(see below)".. yuck.
    • Removed.
  • Keep citations in numerical order.
    • Done.
  • Remove spec section and create infobox as per my first suggestion.
    • Done, I borrowed the coding from {{UAV}} and modified as needed...it's not the standard WikiProject Aircraft infobox, as that one doesn't include specs fields, because specs are prescribed to be in their own section, but it should do.

Quite a lot to do I think, so I'll fail it for now. Feel free to get back to me if you'd like further suggestion or comment, or clarification of my comments. All the best, The Rambling Man 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA re-visited[edit]

Ok, Akradecki asked me for a re-review subsequent to my comments above. Here you go.

  • "...the only wide-body jet air tanker currently in fire service..." - in the USA, in the world?
    • Yes. Evergreen was developing a 747 tanker, but abandoned the project.
  • "The conversion of the original airframe to a fire-fighting aircraft was a joint venture under the name of 10 Tanker Air Carrier between Cargo Conversions of San Carlos, California and Omni Air International, with conversion work being performed by Victorville Aerospace at the Victorville Airport." needs citation.
  • Explain "baffle" or wikilink (for the non-expert).
  • Add a full stop (period) before ref [4] per [[WP:CITE].
  • Last two paras of Usage could be merged to improve flow.
  • Minor point, and perhaps invalid, but "2007–2009" I prefer "2007–09".
  • I think it may be useful to create an article about "Fire season" for those of us who know nothing about it. Then you could link to it from here.
  • "Tanker 910 was also activated for the Moonlight Fire in Plumas County, as of September 6, 2007." needs citation.
  • "...they are happy with the aircraft..." - not really encyclopaedic unless you can "quote" it.
  • Slight excess on external links...

So I'll suggest attending to my comments. It's in a much better state than when I initially reviewed it. Good work. The Rambling Man 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008[edit]

fuck yeah tanker 910 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed spelling on "Humboldt Fire" headline.

Roger that! Hooah!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


2016[edit]

On 20 June 2016 I observed a DC10 drop orange retardant on the San Gabriel Complex Fire from Huntington Drive. It appeared the drop was intended to stop fire from reaching the homes below Saltysailor (talk)• —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC) Looking for refrences — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltysailor (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

Now that Tanker 910 is no longer unique (Tanker 911 has been built up by 10 Tanker Air Carrier), I'm proposing that the article be refined and moved to 10 Tanker Air Carrier, since that is the operator and contractor of record, and the notability inferred by all the media refs applies to that as well. Comments? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why external tanks?[edit]

Does anybody have a clou why they did not install the retardant tanks inside the aircraft? That way, they wouldn't impact aerodynamics, and wouldn't the center of gravity also have remained closer to the original specs? --Cancun771 (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the tanks outside reduces the internal structure changes which would require expensive engineering. A long history of designing conformal tanks makes their design easier. If they started with a KC10 instead of DC10, it may have been cheaper to use existing internal tanks. Also external tanks can be moved to another DC10 if desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltysailor (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DC-10 Air Tanker. 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:

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 23:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on DC-10 Air Tanker. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DC-10 Air Tanker. 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) 21:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanker 910[edit]

  • A third, "Tanker 910" was retired in 2014
  • In late September 2015 Tanker 910 flew from Albuquerque to Australia to begin an exclusive use contract with the State Government of New South Wales. The aircraft was based at RAAF Base Richmond, located 40 miles Northwest of Sydney. In the five months Tanker 910 was stationed in Australia, it flew 32 missions in the three Australian states of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. Tanker 910 returned to Albuquerque on February 26, 2016, to begin preparations for the North American fire season.

So is Tanker 910 retired now or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toben (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They have reused the number for another (overall fifth) Tanker. The original "910" was a DC-10-10 built in 1975 for National Airlines, which got replaced by a much younger DC-10-30. Now all four are DC-10-30 with three coming from the last two production years 1987/1988. "911" is also a DC-10-30, but a much older one, built in 1975 for Finnair.

Oh, and interesting: The last DC-10 ever built is now owned by BC Aircraft Leasing, which is the leasing company for all the tankers… --TheK (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DC-10_Air_Tanker&oldid=1206397843"