Talk:Art Tomassetti

Did You Know Nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tomassetti by F-35 Lightning II in 2002

• ... that test pilot Art Tomassetti (pictured) flew the first-ever Hat-trick in this experimental aircraft? Source: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2019-features/the-hat-trick-history--mission-x-.html
  • ALT1:... that test pilot Art Tomassetti (pictured) was the first (and only) pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35 and the F-35? Source: https://www.dcmilitary.com/tester/news/local/flight-pattern-first-military-test-pilot-to-fly-the-x-35-f-35/article_27ee9b3d-1916-568a-b3b0-bbb3e1035c96.html
  • ALT2:... that Art Tomassetti (pictured) was the first pilot to complete a Hat-trick consisting of a short takeoff, level supersonic dash, and vertical landing all in a single flight in this experimental aircraft? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2001/07/26/wings-of-a-gamble/dad085f3-3735-452c-bd15-7237aa5e9758/
  • ALT3:... that test pilot Art Tomassetti (pictured) completed the first cross-country flight in this X-plane? Source: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/4405/carrier-suitability-tests-for-lockheed-jsf-%28feb.-12%29.html

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/LA Monster
• Comment: Article created in my userspace on March 25, 2020; moved to mainspace on April 22, 2020

Created by Skeet Shooter (talk). Self-nominated at 13:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - n
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - n

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article: - n
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is somewhat "fanboy" i.e promotional. Earwig flagged one passage. Alt1 is best hook. --evrik ^(talk) 01:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing the nom, evrik. Could you let me know which areas you felt were promotional, and I will try to fix/reword. For the earwig issue, were you referring to matches with Tomassetti’s USMC biography (i.e. wording of “firsts” and list of aircraft flown)? The biography is USMC public domain which I acknowledged in the attribution section, but I’ll try to reword if this is the area of concern. Also, the picture currently in the article is a cropped version of the original when I submitted the nom. After I submitted, another editor thought his/her cropped image looked better than the original, so I left it as is. Thanks again. Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ask for help editing here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and try swapping in this image File:USMC Colonel Art Tomassetti 33rd FW.jpg. 03:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• It appears this article is not ready for DYK. I withdraw the nomination. Thanks. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Skeet Shooter: Before you withdraw it, list the article. They may be able to get to it in a week. --evrik ^(talk) 14:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Evrik: Article submitted. Skeet Shooter (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, I completed the GOCE copy edit of the article. It was a little promotional towards the F/X35 program, and some of that content might fit better in other articles. But I feel it's good for DYK now. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Approve Alt1 --evrik ^(talk) 15:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• One question/statement: shouldn't hat-trick be lower case, as it's not a proper noun? Also the Wikipedia page on hat-trick doesn'e mention anything in the context of planes (presumably it's doing 3 of something), so do we need to link it? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK Hook

Only Pilot to Fly All Three Variants of X-35 and F-35

@Yoninah: In this edit, you added a qualifier to a lead sentence to produce "... the only US test pilot to have flown all three variants of the X‑35 and the F-35." I think the original wording (without the US) is correct, but there may be confusion over how the claim was phrased. The wording was taken from the Chen 2012 source, "You're the only pilot to fly all three X-35 variants and the F-35." According to the Code One 2012 source, RAF Sdn. Ldr. Justin Paines was the only other pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35 but is not listed as flying the F-35. I could not find a source that stated Paines ever flew the F-35. Since the X-35s are all in museums, that makes Tomassetti "the only US test pilot to have flown all three variants of the X‑35 and the F-35."

I would like to remove the "US" qualifier from the sentence or find another way to phrase it. If you have a source that shows another pilot flew all three X-35 variants and the F-35, would you please provide it so I can work it into the body of the article?

Thank you, Skeet Shooter (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik:. This issue also ended up in the DYK hook which currently reads "... that Art Tomassetti (pictured) is the only US government test pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35 and the F-35?" I think the original ALT1 hook you selected should be used - ALT1:... that test pilot Art Tomassetti (pictured) was the first (and only) pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35 and the F-35?" The nomination is closed. Is it too late to change? Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• We can still consider another hook .--evrik ^(talk) 01:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Skeet Shooter: and @Evrik: When an article appears on the main page, it has to be absolutely accurate. If we say he was the only test pilot, someone could up with another test pilot, even in another country. In the post above, someone mentions Justin Paines flying the X-35. But if we refine the description, calling him the only US government test pilot, it's much less likely that someone will say they know another US government test pilot. Meanwhile, the source has to be absolutely accurate to verify the hook fact. I read your article and saw this:

He was one of only eight civilian and military pilots to fly the X-35.[13] He became the US government's lead test pilot[14] and was their only pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35.

• The fact that 8 other civilian and military pilots flew the X-35 made me want to refine the description. On second thought, I probably should have added US government test pilot to the article. Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: and @Evrik:. Yes, the article states "He was one of only eight civilian and military pilots to fly the X-35.[13] He became the US government's lead test pilot[14] and was their only pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35[15]." These flights occurred in 2001, and according to the sources listed, two pilots (Tomassetti from US and Paines from UK) flew all three variants of the X-35. The X-35s were then retired so no one else flew them. The production F-35 came years later, and the sources state Tomassetti flew the F-35 in 2012 thereby becoming the only pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35 and the F-35. This is stated later in the article as "He became the only pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35 and the F-35.[4][42]" and was also stated in the lead.
• In summary, I think the "US" qualifier now in the article lead and DYK hook is inaccurate and contradicts the properly sourced statements in the article body. Thank you, Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. The sources are specifically talking about US test pilots. Your footnote 7 explicitly says US test pilot. I prefer to go the safe route at DYK and say US test pilot; I could delete the "government" part if you'd like. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Also, it's a little disingenuous to write and the F-35 and expect readers to know that he's the only one to fly all four; the hook just isn't clear that way. Someone is going to run to WP:ERRORS and say, "What about Paines?" It would be better to say he flew all 4 types of plane. Yoninah (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree a clear description of this achievement is needed. Would the following be acceptable - "the only pilot to have flown the X-35A, X-35B, X-35C, and the F-35"? Skeet Shooter (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• The current wording came from footnote 4 that deals with this event and states, "the only pilot to fly all three X-35 variants and the F-35." Footnote 42 supports this statement by listing all the US and UK pilots who had flown the X-35 and F-35. One has to scroll through the list of pilots, but the text under each pilot confirms that Tomassetti was the only pilot (US or UK) to fly all three X-35 variants and the F-35. Skeet Shooter (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's still not clear. How about:
• ... that Art Tomassetti (pictured) is the only test pilot to fly all three variants of the X-35 as well as the F-35? Yoninah (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with that wording. Thank you for finding a clearer description. Skeet Shooter (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you. I adjusted the hook and also removed my edits from the article. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Skeet Shooter: I just thought of something; in the lead, following the sentence that he was the first Marine to fly all three variants, it seems better to write "in addition to" in the next sentence. Maybe that wording would also work better in the DYK hook? Yoninah (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• That wording sounds good to me in both the lead and DYK Hook. Thanks! Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Skeet Shooter: Next time you make a DYK, I would suggest bringing this up during the review process, or on the DYK page. @Yoninah: sorry I'm late to this, but I didn't have time to rearrange the deck chairs on this one. Cheers. --evrik ^(talk) 15:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, evrik. Actually, this whole discussion belongs on WT:DYK. But I think it's resolved now. Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Evrik: Sorry about that. I was OK with the ALT1 hook to which you and I agreed, but Yoninah wasn’t and made post-review changes to the article lead and DYK hook. I had issues with Yoninah’s changes but after more discussion, we settled on an updated wording. Are you OK with how it ended up? Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit notes

I did copy edit of the article. I might have been more thorough, but I was getting to the point where I might have started removing content and I didn't want to do that or hold up the DYK. A couple notes:

• There are two instances of warfighter in the article. I find it a bit confusing and an ambiguous term (my dictionary gives the definition: a soldier in combat), and suggest replacing it with something more specific. (If it means F35, then say F35.)
• I understand that a certain amount of context of the fighter programs is needed, but sometimes it gets to the point where I'm not sure if the subject of the article is Tomassetti or a fighter development program.
• Related to the above, I think the promotional tone issue raised in the DYK review is material that's promotional toward the X35 program. I did some rephrasing, but just the emphasis on it might be too much. I feel that it's fine for DYK, but there should probably be some trimming before going to GAN (in line with the GA criteria for focus).

I hope this has been of help. Please ping me if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you very much for your copy edits and comments. My responses below:

• I used the term warfighter per the definition in the MacMillan dictionary to mean "a member of the military who engages in or directly supports military operations in hostile or hazardous environments". In both article uses, warfighter was intended to refer to the people (e.g. pilots, weapon loaders, fuel handlers, aircraft maintainers, etc.) not the aircraft or munitions. Warfighter is a fairly common term in the US defense industry, but I can understand it might be jargon to others. I'll see if I can come up with a better term.

•  Done Replaced ambiguous "warfighter" terminology with "service member". Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I added the X-35/F-35 context to help readers who are not familiar with defense acquisition. Without the added context, some passages seemed arcane to me and might be more so to readers without a defense background. But I’ll try to trim back the context.
• Tomassetti is a proponent of the X-35 and F-35. When I paraphrased his work on these aircraft, I tried to point out that positive statements were his opinion (e.g. "According to Tomassetti ...") and also tried to include opposing opinions (e.g. "the USMC declared the F-35B operationally capable rejecting issues raised by critics"). I may need some additional help identifying and fixing these issues.

Thanks again for your review and edits. It helps a lot to have specifics. If you have time to help identify the additional areas, I would appreciate it. Skeet Shooter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Skeet Shooter: There are a few places where it might be a little wordy or go a little broad, like the "Tigers" nickname or "supporters and critics alike". Someone mentioned the capitalization of hat trick which I believe is correct, using it as a proper name for the call sign and logo, and lower case for the general term. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)