Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell XF-85 Goblin/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:07, 5 October 2011 [1].

---

McDonnell XF-85 Goblin

McDonnell XF-85 Goblin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/McDonnell XF-85 Goblin/archive1

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been an A-class article for a few weeks now, during which the article was further expanded and polished by user Bzuk. I think the article had meet every FA criterion, and is ready to undergo some criticism before FA. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sp33dyphil. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor formating issue: Inline citations should follow the final stop with no space, followed by a space before the next sentence. "Example number one.[1] Example number two.[2]"   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Will's point
• When explanatory and citation footnotes appear next to each other, be consistent in which appears first
• "Up to 10% of the B-36s on order were to be converted to fighter carriers with three or four F-85s instead of a bomb load.[N 4]" - does the citation included in N4 cover this sentence also?
• Check ordering of bibliography
• Compare formatting on FNs 25 and 33
• Does Aviation News have volume/issue numbers?
• Dorr title uses emdash, should be endash
• Be consistent in how issue numbers are formatted
• The Lockett source is self-published - what are the qualifications of the author?
• Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nearly done. I don't completely get the 4th and 8th points. I'm don't know what the answers of the 3rd and 6th points. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Your bibliography is mostly in alphabetical order by author last name, but not entirely. You format some issue numbers as "No." but others as "Number" - this should be consistent. As to the 3rd and 6th points, I don't know the answers either. Can you find out? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Inserted: There are a lot of editors involved here, pulling in different directions, at least with regard to language. I'll make a comment at WT:AVIATION. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• I linked requirement and was reverted. Per that page, a requirement is (in this case) a request specifying how the fighter was expected to perform ... is that wrong in this case? In the last FAC, Sandy objected to the unlinked word. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you'd need it. BTW, the article talks nothing about aviation. I wouldn't mind it though. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Per M-W, "requirement" means "something required"; the sense you're using here isn't in the dictionary. Not being in the dictionary is usually a good enough reason to define something; it's even more important if a term has a well-known meaning that fits the context that could confuse the reader. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is in the dictionary – the Air Force required a parasite fighter, and McDonnell and the like responded. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then the general reader who doesn't know the formal term won't be confused ... but engineers won't be sure which meaning you're going for (until they read the text). How about either "a ... request for a fighter" or "requirements for a fighter"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• "would see as a mixed B-36 fleet": ?
• That's all for now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Nikki's comments got mixed in with replies; I added comments to clarify. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not clear on what's been done and not done below. Also, I see nothing was done about my first comment. (Phil, you don't have to do what people say, but if you don't do anything, you're supposed to say something ... that you disagree, or don't understand, or whatever.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits.
• Status report: the best I can tell, everything below has been addressed ... although I may be reading too much into Nikki's reply when she only mentioned a few outstanding points. (Those points have been addressed.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• This is Sp33dyphil's second FAC, so I'm guessing we'll need spotchecks ... which is going to be a problem, because none of the sources are online and none are available in snippet view, Phil says. I've posted notices at WT:MIL and WT:AV asking for spotcheck help from anyone who has the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there any news on this front, Dank? Ucucha (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • None yet would you like me to give it a couple more days, then ask Phil if he can scan and email me a few pages from the sources? - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • So,. let me get this straight - you are asking the proposer to potentially breach copyright - (i.e. copy and electronically distribute sources without permission from the origional copyright holders to prove that the aricle does not include copyvios - Is this really Fair Use?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I try to stay away from making calls on fair use or copyright on WP, so if anyone has a problem with this, I'm open to ideas. How do people generally handle this? What if he made a copy of one page from each of 4 or 5 different sources, snail-mailed them to me, then I snail-mail them back? (In the future, it might be a good idea to include a few sources at least partially available online, Phil.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
          • See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Scanning and e-mailing from sources. Ucucha (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks, that's helpful, so now I'm back to asking people who have any access to any of the sources to help out here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
              • [Moved Nigel's comment down withthe other spotchecking stuff. Thanks!] - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• See below for spotchecks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - There are four images in this article. Three have incomplete Template:Information templates, the lead missing the most (and the source needs more information). The one image that has a complete Template:Information template is rather anemic on details itself. Please fix this. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• <grimace> Done. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Oppose Comments--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fix capitalization of titles in Smith and Cowin.
• This is awkward: The modifications included a "beefed up" bomb bay structural assembly that included the trapeze apparatus, as well a "umbilical" fueling station and equipment, along with the provision for repair of oxygen and other mechanical systems, as well as replenishing ammunition.The modifications included a structurally-reinforced bomb bay that included the trapeze apparatus and an "umbilical" fueling station. In operational use, provisions for repair of oxygen and other mechanical systems, as well as replenishing ammunition were contemplated.
• As is this: The XF-85's performance had proved inferior to contemporary jet fighters and the difficulties experienced in docking revealed a critical shortcoming.
• And this: After failures and fatal accidents, the projects were cancelled in favor of Project FICON (Fighter Conveyor) which emerged as an effective Convair GRB-36D/Republic RF-84K Thunderflash bomber and reconnaissance fighter combination, although the role was changed to that of strategic reconnaissance.
• Link belly landing
• If the top speed estimate of 648 mph proved over optimistic, why are you quoting 664 mph in the specs?

• Hmm, the book doesn't follow up with another top speed, so instead I put 650mph whcih comes from the National Museum of the US Air Force. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• The sequencing of this is messed up: Despite the cancellation of the XF-85, the USAF continued to examine the concept of parasite aircraft as defensive fighters through a series of projects including Project MX-106/Project "Tip Tow" and Project "Tom-Tom" which involved fighter aircraft attached to bomber aircraft by their wingtips. Tip tow followed the XF-85 project, then came FICON, then Tom-Tom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Dates are given in the article and are correct as such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• This issue still hasn't been addressed. I've changed to oppose until it has been dealt with. If you need info to fix it, please say so, but I'll note that the FICON article actually gives the proper sequence if you pay attention to the dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments User:Bzuk checking in.

• • Comments from Nikki (moved from above, it looks like): [this comment by Dank]
  • When explanatory and citation footnotes appear next to each other, be consistent in which appears first.
    • Isn't that totally dependent on the context? [this comment is from Bzuk]
  • "Up to 10% of the B-36s on order were to be converted to fighter carriers with three or four F-85s instead of a bomb load.[N 4]" - does the citation included in N4 cover this sentence also?
    • Yes, the source dealt with the final allocation of fighters and is the only one of three that indicates up to four F-85s to be deployed.
  • Check ordering of bibliography
    • Bibliography is alphabetically sorted by author and when no author is present in the case of the USAF Museum booklet, the standard rule in bibliographic recording is to go the next tracing, the title, and disregard the author, especially if unstated in the text.
  • Compare formatting on FNs 25 and 33
    • Now renumbered, both cites are ultimately from the United States Air Force, but are distinctly different in content, while formatting for the citations remains consistent.
  • Does Aviation News have volume/issue numbers?
    • No, follows a more modern style in eliminating volume, number and issue note.
  • Dorr title uses emdash, should be endash
    • Should actually be colon as stated in book title, fixed.
  • Be consistent in how issue numbers are formatted
    • Fixed by User:Sp33dyphil.
  • The Lockett source is self-published - what are the qualifications of the author?
    • Brian Lockett is a lifelong aviation enthusiast, who has been at the head of his own publishing house for years. Material carefully researched, based on his own photographs and source material from the USAF; peer reviewed, and falls into "niche" segment of aviation books. Moot point as the reference source has been deleted.
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links.
    • Corrected by other editors.
• "would see 'as' a mixed B-36 fleet"
  • • Reading on in the same statement, the sentence actually reads, "The eventual production shift would see a mixed B-36 fleet with both "fighter carriers" and bombers..." Probably corrected by others.
  • Fix capitalization of titles in Smith and Cowin.
    • Titles in articles follow the style of the original, which in this case was sentence form, not title capitalization, first main word capitalized for consistency.
  • This is awkward: The modifications included a "beefed up" bomb bay structural assembly that included the trapeze apparatus, as well a "umbilical" fueling station and equipment, along with the provision for repair of oxygen and other mechanical systems, as well as replenishing ammunition.
    • Changed to: The modifications included a structurally-reinforced bomb bay that included the trapeze apparatus and an "umbilical" fueling station. In operational use, provisions for repair of oxygen and other mechanical systems, as well as replenishing ammunition were contemplated.
  • The XF-85's performance had proved inferior to contemporary jet fighters and the difficulties experienced in docking revealed a critical shortcoming.
    • Changed to: (new paragraph) Two main reasons contributed to the cancellation of the program. The XF-85's deficiencies revealed in flight testing included a lackluster performance in relation to contemporary jet fighters expected to be encountered in defensive actions and the high demands on pilot skill experienced during docking revealed a critical shortcoming that was never fully corrected. The development of practical aerial refueling for conventional fighters used as bomber escort, was also a factor in the cancellation. The two Goblins flew six times, with a total flight time of 2 hours and 19 minutes; Schoch was the only pilot who ever flew the aircraft.
  • After failures and fatal accidents, the projects were cancelled in favor of Project FICON (Fighter Conveyor) which emerged as an effective Convair GRB-36D/Republic RF-84K Thunderflash bomber and reconnaissance fighter combination, although the role was changed to that of strategic reconnaissance.
    • I don't see the issue here, the former and concurrent projects were cancelled in favor of using a similar "parasite" fighter system.
      • The problem is the wording, not the concept.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The sequencing of this is messed up: Despite the cancellation of the XF-85, the USAF continued to examine the concept of parasite aircraft as defensive fighters through a series of projects including Project MX-106/Project "Tip Tow" and Project "Tom-Tom" which involved fighter aircraft attached to bomber aircraft by their wingtips. [end of Nikki's comments; - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)]
    • I think the problem actually stems from the FICON article which was a mishmash of dates and puts all the concurrent, following and succeeding programs all together under the same banner of FICON, which is not entirely accurate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

Comments;

• The two sentences about airship-borne parasite fighters from decades earlier, seem out of place by coming after the sentence discussing the arrangements for the make-up of the B-36 fleet with both bombers and fighter-carriers. Possibly this entire paragraph needs re-ordering. has been fixed

• "for the envisioned mission that specified a 30-min combat endurance" - could this be shortened to "for the specified 30-min combat endurance"? And presumably should be "minute" not "min". has been fixed

• "The XF-85 was carried in a stowed position and during some flights, extended..." - there's something wrong with the flow here, it seems to me. The sentence ends up being mostly about the subset of flights that involved extending the Goblin into the airstream, but it begins by being about all of the initial flights where the Goblin wasn't released. Maybe better as two separate sentences. has been fixed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "McDonnell test pilot Edwin Schoch, who flew the only proving flights on the type" ... then four paragraphs later there is "Schoch was the only pilot who ever flew the aircraft." Probably the first "who flew the only proving flights on the type" isn't needed.

• This has been re-phrased now, but "riding aboard the EB-29B, in the XF-85" also seems confusing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC) has been fixed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• The description of the skids is confusing. I'm assuming the skids under the wings were there to stop the aircraft falling over when it was being worked on or inspected or whatever, and the skids under the fuselage were to allow emergency landings, since the wing-skids wouldn't support a hard landing. Maybe this needs to be made a little clearer, and also remove the "reinforced" adjective for when the emergency landings did happen. has been fixed

• "The initial specification called for three F-85s while the B-36 carrier aircraft retained the capability of carrying one atomic bomb" - maybe better as "The initial specification called for the B-36 carrier aircraft to carry three F-85s and also one atomic bomb" if that's what it means.

• I don't think this is what it means. Since I don't have access to the publication, I cannot comment further on this. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, perhaps you're right, it does sound rather impractical. Maybe it would be better as "The initial specification called for the B-36 carrier aircraft to be able to carry either three F-85s or one atomic bomb" ? has been fixed

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Again, a forced landing in the desert was successfully carried out" - not terribly surprising for USAF testing to happen over a desert, but I think it should be explained (earlier) which desert, rather than just having it suddenly appear. has been fixed

• "The first test flights had the hook secured in a fixed position, but when the hook was stowed and later raised, the resulting turbulence led to the addition of upper and lower fins at the extreme rear fuselage as well as two wingtip fins to compensate for the increased directional instability". Maybe break this into two sentences and explain it a bit more. I assume the reason for the hook being raised rather than fixed, was when the first non-captive (free) flights were tried, and thus the prototype would need to hook up to the mothership - since it was not the intention for even any test flights to land the prototype on its skids - but this isn't explained. has been fixed

• "in relation to contemporary jet fighters expected to be encountered in defensive actions" - I know this is partly a change made as part of this FAC, but I'm uncertain about the wording. Mentioning defensive actions makes me think of the defenders being the country the B-36 is going to bomb, whereas this text is presumably supposed to mean that it's the Goblin itself that is engaging in the defensive actions. The reader already knows that the Goblin is going to be defending its host bomber(s), so can all or some of "expected to be encountered in defensive actions" be missed out? Also I'd put a comma at the end of this clause. has been fixed

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• "experiments were also carried out as part of the Zveno experiments" needs some changes to deal with repetition. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Now fixed and suitably expanded... a small topic but comprehensively covered. Support. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments - nice article!

• Any reason why "2" built in the infobox shouldn't be "Two" per MOSNUM?
• "stabilizer" is a dab link.
• Does US "cancellation" really have two l's when canceled doesn't?
  • Yes, cancellation always has two l's. Cancelled and canceled are both fine; some dictionaries mention a British connection with "cancelled", but it's perfectly fine AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• " the USAF continued " is that the USAF or USAAF as you linked earlier?
• "Allied bombers such..." these are all US aircraft, no mentions of the Spitfire, Lancaster, Hurricane, for equilibrium....?

• The Spitfire and Hurricane were short range fighters, and couldn't accompany a bomber from England to Berlin. (The P-51 was particularly significant because it could.) The majority of attacks by Lancasters on German cities took place at night, without fighter escort. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Point is that the sentence just says "Allied bombers such as ...". it might as well say "US bombers such as...". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed it doesn't need "Allied" - I've changed it to "American". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Dneiper -> Dnieper.
• No need to abbreviate ATSC since it's never used again.
• "landing.[7][15]Despite" space required.
• Odd to see you using dmy dates in a US-centric article, but not a major issue for me.
• Is it "s/n" or "S/N" for serial number?
• "by Offutt AFB.[24]It is " space required.
• "Specifications (XF-85)" - is there a real need to repeat (XF-85) here?
• "Max takeoff weight: lb (kg)" missing info here.
• Ref 28 could use a comma as a thousand separator for the page number.
• Lesnitchenko's ref, year range needs an en-dash.
• As does the category Category:United States fighter aircraft 1940-1949.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Mostly done. As for the date format, I'd would categorise the aircraft as a modern fighter as it was built following the war (per WP:STRONGNAT). For the serial number, it should "s/n" because it's not an acronym (note the slash). I'd prefer to leave the category alone because there is no consensus regarding the dash/hyphen issue. Thanks for your input :D Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, so should the S/N here: " (B-36J-111, S/N 52-2217A)" be s/n? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. If you look through aviation books, construction numbers would be shortened as "c/n"; same with serial numbers. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - quick spot check on Dorr - the page number on the one cite from Dorr appears to be outside the Wings of Fame article - which spans pages 26–35. It may be helpful to give more bibliographic detail on the precise issue of Wings of Fame used, which was published simultaneously in softback and hardback editions in the UK and AIRtime in the US (all with different ISBN numbers) - the page numbering of these three editions is probaly the same but perhaps not.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Knaack is available for download here but does not seem to be a major source (only being used for a program cost). Lesnitchenko (the Air Enthusiast article on the Soviet Zveno program isn't closely paraphased but again isn't a major reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• I make the appropriate page number for the Dorr cite p. 30 (from the Aerospace soft cover edition - ISBN 1 874023 97 2. The ref says "He was the only pilot to fly the XF-85." while the article says "Schoch was the only pilot who ever flew the aircraft." (text added here, although I'm not sure how many different ways this single fact could be stated.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have spot checked the Gunston 'Fighters of the fifties' cites (currently 24 and 25), no close paraphrasing but the location of the forced landing (Rogers Dry Lake) is not supported by that source as no location is given at all by Gunston for the flight testing or the forced landing. There are many sentences that start directly after a citation without a space bar hit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dorr has the testing taking place at Muroc (i.e. Edwards AFB) and the forced landings taking place at "the dry lake bed" (p. 26, 30-3, 34) which has to be either Rogers Dry Lake or Rosamond Dry Lake.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Both Francillon in McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 (p. 458) and an article in Air Enthusiast (Allen, Francis. "The Ultimate Escort". Air Enthusiast Fifty-two, Winter 1993. pp. 17–23) (p.22-3) refer to MJuroc Dry Lake - which redirect here to Rogers - although whether they are referring to the Lake or the Air Base....Nigel Ish (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Don't doubt that Nigel, just stating that Gunston gives no location so the cite technically does not support it. Another source has not been used yet; Angelucci/Bowers 'The American Fighter'. It contains more specifications (mainly flight performance), more detail on the flights possibly, and small details such as Herman Barkey was actually Herman D. Barkey, (don't know if that is important but someone may correct it in the future (seems to be common practice in the US to use the middle initial). Should he be red linked as the designer of a notable aircraft (and possibly others?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
      • No source adequately identifies the emergency landing areas used, so a note to the reader has been inserted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC).
• Comment on spotchecks: Some of the material was added by User:Bzuk ... he's an accomplished writer and I didn't doubt his skills in the first place, but I'm doubly sure after getting some emailed material from him today that he passes his spotchecks. Still, another statement or two would be helpful from anyone who has the references (including Bzuk) to check a paragraph or two of Phil's contributions against the originals. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, I've checked any and all statements made by every editor involved in the development of the article, and generally, there is no problem with the information not matching up with the sources or with "close paraphrasing" (whatever the hdoubleLhockey pucks that means, if you are saying "copying" or verbatim use of text; that does not happen in this article). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

• Support - another well written comprehensive and well sourced article from the military history guys, and a blooming interesting article too. Support promotion to FA. Coolug (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.