Talk:Project Kingfisher

Suggestions

G'day, nice work on this article. Definitely close to B class, IMO, but I wonder if maybe it gives the appearance of focusing too much on the individual weapons developed, rather than the project itself. In this regard, I wonder if it might be an improvement to reorganise the article a little. In this regard, I'd suggest maybe adding a "Weapons developed" section (level 2 header), with Kingfisher A to F as level 3 headers underneath that. I would also suggest maybe adding an "Aftermath" section (level 2 header), which outlines the costs involved (if known), when the project ended and why, and potentially what project followed it. The Background section could potentially include details about any key people who were involved, how the project was managed, and where it was carried out (locations). Anyway, I hope these suggestions help a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

They're greatly appreciated. That might be a good formatting idea; it's a bit complex because Kingfishers C to F were built and have their own articles, but A-B were only minor projects as part of the development; then again, that might make it more likely to work this way. Unfortunately, as for the rest, there's very little, but I think I can draw on the NBS results to mention the involvement of Dryden and Condon, I'll see what I can get done tonight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, your changes look good. Thanks for you work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem! Thanks for the help. If I can grab Friedman via interlibrary loan I can try to push for more later. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)