Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Disney bomb

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.

No consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerenetalk 16:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disney bomb

edit
Nominator(s): Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article is well-structured, pretty comprehensive and factually accurate. The article contains strong supporting visuals, such as images diagrams and movies. It has recently appeared on DYK and passed the GA review. I nominate this article to improve it with your suggestions and, hopefully, to bring it to FA status at a later stage. Thanks in advance for any input! Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note 6 should be incorporated into the very first line of the article - official name should be given, not buried in footnotes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with minor comments:
  • "the Royal Air Force adopted two large" - do you really mean adopted? (e.g. they were used by someone else or for another purpose, and then by the RAF for this purpose). I wasn't quite sure!  Done I rephrase the first sentence to emphasize on Wallis' work.
  • "These features accord with Newton's approximation for impact depth, and the empirical design equation known as Young's equation..." The jump into (relatively) technical language here is quite sharp - is there any way of softening it for the casual reader?
  • "The CP/RA[Note 6] Disney bombs..." there's a note explaining it, but could you perhaps say "The Disney bombs, officially codenamed 4500-lb CP/RA bombs, were 16 ft..." which would mean that you wouldn't have to click on it to make sense of the CR/RA bit?
  • "barometric switch" - worth linking or footnoting what this is.  Done --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to anecdote, the idea arose..." As the first sentence in a new section, you'll want to say what the idea was. (e.g. "The idea of the bomb...")
  • "to decide in its favour giving it "P plus" priority" - worth explaining, linking or footnoting - is this a high priority...?
  • "In June 1945, the Air Council[Note 15] wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty expressing "their appreciation" of the work that had been done on the "rocket bomb"" - did the Air Council really write about "their appreciation"? I could imagine a letter in which the Council put "our appreciation" in it, but it sounds like the quote is describing the letter, not actually from it (in which case, you'd need to say whose quote it is). Unless, I suppose, it was the Secretary of the Council writing the letter... - anyway, just curious!
  • Did the bomb influence any later designs?
  • Enjoyed the article! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comments This is an interesting and very detailed article which is close to meeting A class standard. I think that a few issues need to be addressed first though:
    • The clarification needed tag in the first sentence of the paragraph which begins with 'Testing of the Disney bombs began' should be addressed (though this seems an adequate level of detail to me)
    • " There had been numerous other attacks from bombers carrying smaller, conventional bombs." needs a citation
    • The last paragraph of the 'Development and testing' section states that the Watten bunker was an 'ideal' test location, but the first paragraph of the 'Post-war development' section states that it was 'too small to be a satisfactory target' - can this contradiction be resolved?
    • "so a very large bunker complex, such as Valentin, would have required many penetrating hits to be sure of destroying all the contents." needs a citation
    • Notes 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 need references. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: (very minor - mainly with a view towards FA). I might not get back to this review before I have to go away for a month (leaving next Friday). As such, for the closing co-ord, please do not consider this review as an oppose or a support. These are only some suggestions.
    • sometimes you use Second World War and sometimes World War II (and then sometimes WWII). Either is fine, but it should be consistent, I think;
    • the use of emdashes, endashes and hyphens to break up clauses is a little inconsistent;
    • sometimes endashes are being used in compound adjectives, when they should probably just be hyphens. For example: "prisoners–of–war" (should just be hyphens);
    • the References and Further reading section appear in a different sized font. I'd suggest making them the same by adding the "refbegin"/"refend" tags to the Further reading section as well. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "making repair uneconomic by the shock waves transmitted through the ground.": ?
  • I generally don't comment on footnotes, but I don't think these footnotes are working. For the first two, it's not clear how much weight you give to the other figures. Since I haven't read the refs, I'm not in a position to say exactly which of the footnotes are tangential, but footnote 3 is one candidate; there are so many footnotes that some of them are likely to come across as tangential. The material in footnote 5 would be better in the main text.
  • "It was shaped to be much slimmer than was usual for aircraft-dropped bombs and a cluster of booster rockets accelerated the weapon as it fell, so it struck the target with a velocity much greater than its free-fall, terminal velocity.": "so it struck ..." and following seems redundant.
  • "These features accord with Newton's approximation for impact depth ...": "features" isn't the right word here ... that would include the rockets, which Newton didn't write about. Maybe "Per Newton's ...". Also, "Newton's approximation for impact depth" is an WP:EGG problem; better is "Newton's approximation for impact depth".
  • "dense, long and thin (i.e. has a large sectional density)": Personally, I'd omit the parenthetical comment, since most readers would get more from "dense and thin".
  • "CP/RA": acronyms should be spelled out at first occurrence, and even though this is technically the name of the bomb, it's also an acronym.
  • "the bomb ... they": Either "the bomb ... it" or "the bombs ... they".
  • "Shellite": the best I can tell, lowercase it. There seem to have been several different mixtures called "shellite", some of which might be uppercased, such as Diggers' Shellite.  Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No.58 MK I tail Pistol fuzes": "No. 58", and don't insert a location (tail) in the middle of a name.
  • "(i.e. furthest from the nose)": probably just (furthest from the nose)
  • "nineteen": WP:ORDINAL prefers 19. I don't have a preference.
  • "the 3 inches (76 mm) Rocket Projectile": the RP-3, a 3-inch (76 mm) rocket projectile
  • "In the third rear section": In the third (rear) section
  • Oppose. I'm going to stop there ... I don't often oppose simply over prose issues, but this needs more work than I have time to give it. I'm hoping someone can finish up, it's an interesting and well-researched article. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Disney_bomb&oldid=1141873592"