Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Silverplate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silverplate

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Modification of aircraft to carry nuclear weapons during World War II Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

A minor point: the caption on the lead image doesn't give any immediate clue as to its links to Silverplate; I've a habit (and I suspect I'm not alone) of first reading the article title and glancing at the picture, before carrying on through the lead. In this case, it wasn't obvious what the link between the article title and the image was (my first assumption was that it was the name of a famous aircraft, perhaps the one in the picture), and the references to bombers is in the second line of the lead. Is there any way of getting the word Silverplate into the caption? e.g. "Martin-Omaha B-29-36-MO Superfortress 44-27297 Bockscar of the 509th Composite Group, part of the Silverplate project." or something like that? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easily done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- One dab link [1]:
  - C-97
    - Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
- Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd information as far as I can tell, captions looks fine (no action req'd).
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [3] (no action req'd).
- No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
- Think there may be a missing word here: "USAAF sent instructions to its Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field...", consider instead: "The USAAF sent instructions to its Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field..."
  - Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Pullman B-29 flew in to Muroc on 20 February, and testing began on 28 February..." which year?
  - Y 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " The Pullman B-29 was flown to Wendover..." suggest wikilinking Wendover here (you do it later on I think).
  - Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Typo here I think: "Two were given to the 216th while the remaining six were assigned to the 509th at Wendover as replacements in case of loss of bombers operating from Tinian...", consider "Two were given to the 216th while the remaining six were assigned to the 509th at Wendover as replacements in case of the loss of bombers operating from Tinian..."
  - Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise this looks like a very good article to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

I don't really think that giving the full designation, down to block number, in the caption really does anything for the reader. I'd also suggest simplifying it down to the bare necessities, which doesn't include the manufacturer, but rather the designer, Boeing. I'd suggest something like "The Silverplate Boeing B-29 Superfortress Bockscar that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki"
- Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Pullman be in quotes in the lede?
- Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "Twenty four" be hyphenated?
- Y Per MOS:NUMERAL Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.