This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"The ramifications of the Air Force decision, since abandoned, of operating dissimilar aircraft (in this case C-130s and F-16s) at the same air base weren't examined by the two accident investigation boards"
This line doesn't fit the article; at least, not as it stands. The line suggests that the operation of dissimilar aircrafts should have been examined. If this type of investigation is a norm the line should be expanded to explain this. If accomplishing this investigation was an issue during the aftermath, the line should be expanded to explain this issue. If this line is the opinion of the author of Silent Knights it should be pulled. Now my recommendation, if at all able, is to expand the line and explain why the lack of this investigation was or should be an issue; otherwise, the line should be pulled. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.14.49 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I added that line, but I don't mind if you pull it. Once this article has my undivided attention, and that will probably be some months from now, I'll fit that opinion better into the article by explaining, with sources, why that opinion is relevant. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
