Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

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 - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cthomas3 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to eventually take this to featured-article status. This second-generation jet fighter had a prominent role in the defense of western Europe during the Cold War, flying in no fewer than fifteen air forces. I'm new to the A-class (and FAC) process, so any advice is welcome. The article was recently reviewed as GA-class. CThomas³ (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Lead

"became widely used as a fighter-bomber" I am not sure that it was widely used; perhaps something like 'was frequently deployed in a fighter-bomber role'?
"it was developed into an all-weather fighter in the late 1960s. It was originally developed by" It would be nice to replace one of these with a synonym.
The first paragraph of the lead jumps around chronologically. Any chance of rearranging the sentences in date order?
"who contributed to the development of" Maybe 'who also contributed to the development of'?
"his outspoken opposition to the selection of the F-104" Selection of the F-104 as what?
"The final production version of the fighter model was" If this was the final production version, then "of the fighter model" should be deleted.
Overall the lead seems short for a 8,000+ word article. I note that it contains nothing on "Operational history" or "Flying characteristics" which occupy a lot of the main article. Are you happy that it meets MOS:LEAD, especially re being "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

As mentioned below, a new lead is coming. I'll put that on hold as we work through the rest of the article. CThomas³ (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background and early development

"especially high speed and altitude capabilities" Optional: → ' especially high speed and high altitude capabilities'?

Agreed, fixed.

"Armed with this information, Johnson immediately started the design of such an aircraft on his return to the United States" 1, Suggest deleting "Armed with this information". 2, "immediately" and "on his return to the United States" seem to contradict.

Agreed, fixed.

"The small L-246 design" This comes from nowhere; it needs introducing.

Agreed, now introduced as "designated Temporary Design Number L-246".

" the Model 083 Starfighter" Ditto.

Agreed, moved to its own sentence and introduced as a Lockheed designation for the prototype.

"Johnson presented the design to the Air Force" Specify which air force.

Turns out it was the United States Air Force. Added.

"and work starting on two prototypes that summer" See MOS:SEASON: Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres.

Agreed, fixed. Now reads "soon after", as no specific dates are given in the source material.

"The second prototype was destroyed several weeks later during gun-firing trials" Wow! Any more detail on this?

Yes, plenty of accounts of this incident. I was planning on adding a detailed write-up of it to the XF-104 article (I'd like to take that to FA someday as well), but I can add a short summary to this article also. Although there seems to be some disagreement as to the exact date (14 April or 18 April 1955), the consensus appears to be that that during test-firing of the M61 Vulcan cannon, the hatch in the floor for the downward-firing ejection seat blew out, causing rapid decompression in the cockpit. Test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon's pressure suit inflated, restricting his vision and causing him to mistake the incident for a gun-firing mishap (an earlier incident of which had caused severe engine damage for a different test pilot). He promptly ejected, but a review of the incident revealed that wasn't crippled and could have been landed safely, though Salmon had no way of knowing this at the time. I'll put together a few sentences for this section.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping it succinct.

I was going to suggest something, but if "the downward-firing ejection seat blew out", how did the pilot "promptly eject"?

Just the hatch blew out, leaving a big hole in the bottom of the airplane. The pilot and seat were still inside.

I thought as much. In which case the statement in the article is incorrect. How about something like 'The second prototype was destroyed several weeks later during gun-firing trials when the hatch to the ejector seat blew out, depressurising the cockpit and causing the pilot to eject in the mistaken belief that a major system had failed.'?

Thank you, I modified the above slightly but for the most part that's what I went with. I did want to emphasize that his belief was that specifically the gun had malfunctioned and blown off part of the plane.

Images

This is not an image review.

Some images create an MOS:SANDWICH.

Agreed, I removed one image that I found causing SANDWICH in the the Taiwan Strait subsection. Do you see others?

"Formosa"; "Taiwan" in consecutive image captions. Is there a reason this isn't standard.

Not a good one, no. Changed the two instances of "Formosa" in the captions and prose to "Taiwan", as that was used more often.

Insert Wikilinks into the image captions where applicable.

Done.

"Several images are missing alt text.

Embarrassing how many of these there were, because it is something I thought I checked. Evidently I didn't finish checking. Done.

Alt text tool.

"the red coloring has been added by the museum". "the museum"? What museum?
The Auto & Technik Museum Sinsheim, Germany. Added.
"M61 cannon installation of a German Navy F-104G". Should "of" be 'on'?

I just rewrote the whole caption to make it clearer what it's showing.

"A Martin-Baker Mk.7 Ejection seat from an F-104G" Why the upper case E?

No good reason that I can think of. Fixed.

"West German F-104G with a Zero-length launch rocket booster and a B43 nuclear bomb at Militärhistorisches Museum Flugplatz Berlin-Gatow." 1. Why the upper case Z? 2. There is I assume (I hope) a missing 'replica of'.

1. No good reason, and 2. yes. Both fixed.

Image captions should only end in a full stop (period) when completing a grammatical sentence.

Agreed, and fixed everywhere that I found.

"YF-104A, AF ser. no. 55-2961, NASA aircraft number 818 was flown by NASA from 27 August 1956 to 26 August 1975 for 1,439 flights flown." "AF ser. no." in full or not at all please.

Agreed, and spelled out. Also slightly rewritten in general.

"Italian Air Force F-104S in original camouflage scheme with Sparrow missiles mounted under the wings, c. 1969" Why the italics?

Good question. It shouldn't be italicized. Fixed and linked.

Nicknames

Be consistent as to whether the translations into English have uppercase initials. Eg "Fliegender Sarg ("flying coffin")"; Badmash ("Hooligan"); Spillone ("hatpin").

All nicknames should now be capitalized, and translations lower case (with the one proper name exception).

Further development

"with the other 16 trial aircraft" What 16 other trial aircraft?

Added sentence to clarify that these are the 17 YF-104A service-test aircraft ordered on 30 March 1955 by the USAF.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check the external links?

I will do that. That's the first time I've seen this tool, very cool.

Design

What is "the horizontal reference plane"?

The plane bisecting the fuselage into two equal top and bottom pieces along the longitudinal centerline. I've added "along the longitudinal centerline of the fuselage" as an explanation.

What is "the minimum-drag angle of attack"?

It is the angle of attack of the wings to the surrounding airflow calculated/tested to experience the minimum amount of aerodynamic drag. I've changed this to "which allowed the plane to fly at an angle of attack experiencing the minimum amount of drag through the air."

"the most efficient shape for high-speed supersonic flight was a very small, straight, mid-mounted, trapezoidal wing" Is there a reason why the thinness of the wing is not mentioned here?

It wasn't mentioned specifically in the passage I was using as a reference, but it is mentioned other places in that reference and in other references, one of which I added.

"during high-g maneuvers during air-to-air combat" Any chance of swapping out one of these?

How about "commonly used in air-to-air combat"? Or, we can just end the sentence at "high-g maneuvers."

"potential top speed" Why only "potential"?

I believe I added that because its actual top speed tended to suffer pretty dramatically as external stores were added, but that happens to most aircraft, and in re-reading the source passage, "potential" top speed isn't really discussed, so I have taken it out.

"allowing a maximum speed well in excess of Mach 2" In which version(s)?

All of them, really. Even the YF-104A could reach Mach 2.2+, but only for a limited time as the engine would overheat quickly. I've hopefully addressed this and the next point below.

"aerodynamic heating limitations of the aluminum structure" Maybe also explain this in English?

It now reads "Available thrust was actually limited by the geometry of the inlet scoop and duct; the aircraft was capable even higher Mach numbers if the aluminum skin of the aircraft were able to withstand the heating due to air friction. Furthermore, speeds above Mach 2 quickly overheated the J79 engine beyond its thermal capabilities, which resulted in the F-104 being "placarded" at Mach 2."

"presenting a foreign object damage (FOD) hazard with discarded links" And in English this means?

Changed to "resenting a foreign object damage (FOD) hazard as discarded links were occasionally sucked into the engine."

"The F-104S models added a pair of fuselage pylons" "models" or 'model'? (or maybe 'variants'?)

"Variants" works, as there were two (an intercepter version and a fighter-bomber version). Fixed.

Link fairing.

Done.

I shall pause here and await responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you for your great review so far. I've read through your copyedits and agree with all of them (and cringed at a few actually, I shouldn't have missed them in the first place). This gives me plenty to work on tonight. I already have a new draft of the lead in flight; I'm not starting entirely from scratch but it deserves a fresh look. CThomas³ (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit: don't worry, it happens to all of us. I remember being picked up on Julius Ceaser and simply not being able to see what was wrong with it.

No rush. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Take your time and get it right. As my father used to say "measure twice, cut once".

I usually leave fine tuning the lead until the very end. It is difficult to create an accurate summary of the article when it is subject to change. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's as far as I could get tonight. Assuming you are okay with the fixes thus far, I'll tackle the design section tomorrow. I agree it's quite technical and could use some clarification. CThomas³ (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. A couple of responses above.

Infobox

Why does "Retired" specify the nation and "Introduced" not?

That wasn't my edit, but my supposition is because "National origin" already indicates who introduced it and, were it not qualified, the assumption would be the same country retiring it. I'm fine with both being qualified.

The Canadian Air Force used the Canadair CF-104 variant. Why is it not listed under primary users?

WP:AIRMOS says to limit this to three additional, and as I add them all up I actually see I made an error (I was missing a couple of variants in my spreadsheet). The top four users were West Germany (916), Turkey (somewhere around 434), Italy (361), and the United States (296). I've corrected the infobox to list the US as the developer in the first primary user slot, and then the top three international users as the remainder. Taiwan is fifth with approximately 276, then Canada sixth with 238 and Japan seventh with 230.

Operational history

Link "air-superiority" to Air supremacy'

Done.

Link interceptor to Interceptor aircraft.

Done, though I had a question about this. I've been trying to be careful not to link things more than once, but the earlier occurrence in this particular case is way back up in the first sentence of the lead. Do you have a rule of thumb you go by when it comes to situations like this?

"PLAAF": in full at first mention please.

Done.

"Col. Howard "Scrappy" Johnson" 1. "Col." in full please. 2. Who was he and why should weight be attached to his comment. These two questions probably have the same answer.

He was one of the pilots deployed to Taiwan. I like the quote, but if you think it needs to be taken out, I'm okay with that.

"1Lt" In full please.

Done.

"after the 6 October ceasefire" → something like 'after a ceasefire was agreed on 6 October'.

Done.

Link Pacific Air Forces.

Done.

Red link "Operation Stair Step".

Done.

"did not directly engage any enemy fighters" Did any US aircraft?

Yes, many aircraft did directly engage the enemy, especially the F-4, which served as the primary counter to the Vietnamese MiGs. The F-100, F-102 and F-105 also were deployed in MIGCAP roles. I've not changed anything here yet; the point I was trying to make was the aircraft was used as a deterrent rather than for direct engagements. Accounts seem to differ as to why this was, which is one reason why I haven't expanded it.

Link "theater" to Theater (warfare).

Done.

"The subsequent F-104C" I think that we need a better word or words than "subsequent". And why is this under "Berlin Crisis of 1961"?

It shouldn't be there in that section, for sure. I've removed the redundant part of that paragraph and placed the remaining parts where they belong, and removed the word "subsequent" since it doesn't really need to be there where the sentence is now. See below.

Link "multi-role" to Multirole combat aircraft.
"Although not an optimum platform for the theater, the F-104 did see limited service in the Vietnam War" This seems a bit redundant as you then have a whole section on the Vietnam war.

Removed.

"in the air-support mission" That's not grammatically correct. You can have 'in [or "on"] a air-support mission', or 'in the air-support role'.

Agreed, it now reads "in the air-superiority and air-support roles".

Why is "Big Eye" in italics?

I've linked it to Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star#Big Eye instead.

"an additional nine aircraft were lost" Why are the first five losses detailed plane by plane, while the subsequent nine get a brief mention? Why are the first five detailed in the text at all, when the information is then repeated in a table?

I've cut down the text to address just the Philip E. Smith incident that claimed three Starfighters.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. There are a few items above that probably aren't resolved yet, but hopefully we're making progress. CThomas³ (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are, we are. You can see why I didn't think that it was ready for FAC - it could have been a chastening experience. But you have put in a huge amount of good work, so most of what is needed is presentational or MoS fixes. I'll try to get another chunk reviewed tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table of losses; 1 Aug 1966 : Were both aircraft lost in the same incident? If so, this could, optionally, be mentioned. If not they should have separate entries. The start of this entry "Two F-104Cs" is redundant.

Agreed. They are now two separate entries, as they were unrelated incidents about two hours apart. Rather than just "MIGCAP" I have included the fact that both were on escort missions for Operation Iron Hand SAM suppression.

"procured only 296 examples in single-seat and two-seat versions." This suggests that other versions are available. Perhaps 'procured only 296 examples; in both single-seat and two-seat versions' or similar?

How about "procuring only 296 examples including both single-seat and two-seat versions"?

"US" or "U.S."? Standardise.

I went with US, and revised one of them entirely.

There seems to be excessive detail on the Indian Gnat incident.

Shortened to ({tq|The Starfighter was also instrumental in capturing an IAF Folland Gnat on 3 September 1965, which opted to land at a nearby unused Pakistani airfield and surrender rather than engage the intercepting F-104s (though this account is disputed by the IAF).}}

"Squad Leader Rashid Batti" Really? Or 'Squadron'?

Squadron Leader, fixed, as well as the typo of his name (Bhatti).

"its pilot was listed as MIA" In full at first mention.

Done.

Link CL-1200 Lancer at first mention in the main article.

Done.

"U.S. favor" → 'favor with the U.S.'
"and eventually a total of 2,578 of all variants of the F-104 were built in the U.S. and abroad for various nations" I don't see how the total built belongs in this sub section and it repeats information from Further development. Is the number built just for non-US use known?

I don't know that I have exact numbers of how many of the remaining 2,282 aircraft were built solely for non-US use. The USAF didn't purchase any additional aircraft for itself beyond the 296, but according to Davies 2014, 110 F-104G/TF-104G were purchased by West Germany and operated by the USAF to train NATO pilots. This leaves roughly 2,172 that were likely produced exclusively for non-US use. However, since I don't have an exact number, I just went with "more than 2,000".

Link "Military Aid Program" to Mutual Defense Assistance Act.

Done.

Link "Martin-Baker" to Martin-Baker Mk.10, or whichever version it was.

Linked to the Mk.7.

Link U.S. Senate.

Done, and made it United States Senate.

Link "bribery scandals" to Lockheed bribery scandals.

Done, but my thought was the {{Main}} link at the head of the section meant I shouldn't link it again.

Is there an appropriate link for "advanced research aircraft"?

The List of NASA aircraft article links links to List of X-planes when it talks about experimental aircraft; there is also the more generic List of experimental aircraft. Do either of these work for you?

"their performance in moisture" is a bit clumsy. Reword?

Changed to "evaluate their performance when exposed to moisture". The wording from the source is They were also flown through rain to study how moisture would affect them.

" bringing the F-104's service with NASA Dryden to a close" Just NASA Dryden, or all of NASA?

No, all of NASA. Fixed.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions for you above, otherwise all set. CThomas³ (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flying characteristics

"and its high-alpha stalling and pitch-up behavior was known to command respect" I am left wondering what "command respect" means. Could it be phrased less euphemistically?

I agree. How about "required attentiveness from its pilot"?

"raise the landing gear to avoid exceeding the limit speed of 260 knots" And "limit speed" would be?

Changed to "maximum landing gear operating speed" and linked to V speeds.

"Landings were also done at high speed:" Is there a better word or phrase than "done"?

How about "performed"?

"shortened the Starfighter's landing roll" "roll" will not mean much to most readers.

Changed the entire sentence to "To limit the Starfighter's landing roll, or distance traveled while decelerating from touchdown to taxi speed, powerful brakes were combined with a 16-foot (4.9 m) drag chute."

"Uncontrolled tip-tank oscillations" What is a "tip-tank"?

Changed to "Uncontrolled oscillations of its wingtip-mounted fuel tank sheared one wing off of an F-104B".

"Some aircrews experienced uncommanded "stick kicker" activation" I don't think that "aircrews" is a good choice of words. (Was the aircraft a single seater?)

There were both single-seat and twin-seat versions, though the two-seaters were mostly used for training. Changed the entire sentence, see below.

"at low level when flying straight and level," Is it possible to avoid using "level" twice in six words?

Changed sentence to read 'Some pilots experienced uncommanded "stick kicker" activation at low altitudes when flying straight and level, so F-104 crews were often directed to deactivate it for flight operations.'

"Asymmetric flap deployment was another common cause of accidents, as was a persistent problem with severe nose wheel "shimmy" on landing that usually resulted in the aircraft leaving the runway and in some cases even flipping over onto its back" Suggest that "asymmetric flap deployment" and "nose wheel "shimmy" on landing" are two separate topics, best dealt with by separate sentences.

Hmm, I'm not all that happy with the way it reads, but it's now two sentences. I unfortunately don't have a lot of detail to add about the asymmetric flap deployment.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"by flying to 91,243 feet (27,811 m)[a] at Edwards AFB" I am not sure about "at".

Does "over" work better? The source text does say "at Edwards AFB", and the base is 470 square miles in area, so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility the record was set within the confines of the base.

Your choice.

"Jacqueline Cochran" Why is her (reserve) rank not specified?

Very good question. I had no idea she was in the Air Force reserve, as none of my F-104 sources that reference her (I've found around five so far) mention that fact; they all call her simply "Jacqueline Cochran" (in one case, "famed aviatrix"). I was wondering if perhaps it was because she was 58 (exactly) at the time and therefore likely retired from the reserve, but after looking her up she didn't retire from the USAF until 1970. I then wondered if perhaps it was because she was flying a Lockheed-owned TF-104G rather than an Air Force one, and thus perhaps not flying in an official Air Force capacity, but that's just conjecture on my part, and I'm not really sure if that should make a difference anyway. I have a feeling it's just been omitted for no good reason. I added "a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force reserve", but I am open to better suggestions.

That seems fine to me. I suspect that the rank was missing due to, hopefully unconscious, sexism.

"77 fighter-bomber versions for USAF Tactical Air Command" Sentences should not begin with numbers. I know, I know; I don't write the rules.

Fixed. I've rewritten a lot of these to be complete sentences.

"21 built." See above. This is also not a sentence.

Fixed.

"20 built by Lockheed."

Fixed.

"After their retirement in Japan, the U.S. delivered some F-104J/DJs to the Taiwanese Air Force" The same airframes?

Yes, the same airframes. I've changed it to "some of these F-104J/DJs".

"Inertial Navigation System" I am not sure about those upper case initial letters.

Lower-cased.

"with simplified equipment and optical gunsight" was the optical gunsight also simplified? If not, best 'with an optical gunsight and simplified equipment'.

It wasn't a simplified optical gunsight; it was an optical gunsight that replaced the NASARR radar system. I've swapped them.

"no strike capability" Sentence fragment.

Fixed.

"After being retired in Japan, the U.S. delivered some 104J/DJs to the airforce of Taiwan" The same airframes?

Yes. Fixed.

"Combat radius was up to 775 mi (1,247 km) with four tanks" fuel tanks?

Yes. Fixed.

"49 airframes upgraded from 1995 to 1997"

Fixed.

"200 Canadian-built versions"

Fixed.

"Operators" section: it would make sense to swap the paragraphs, so they are in chronological order.

Agreed, and swapped.

"Aircraft on display" I am not sure this is worth a section. I would put it at the end of the previous section - and rename the section.

I've removed the section entirely and moved the link to the list to "See also".

"Notable appearances in media" section. It is normal to put links like these in the "See also" section, rather than in a blank section.

Interestingly this is exactly how WP:AIRMOS says to do it. I've removed the section and placed the link to the aircraft in fiction article to "See also".

"See also" section. There should be nothing here which is already linked in the article. It is see also.

(I think) I've removed everything that appears elsewhere in the article.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Mohan & Chopra lacks a publisher and a publisher location.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a skim, that all looks good. I am a bit busy at the moment, so it may be a couple of days before I get back with a more detailed response. In the mean time other editors may comment, or comment on my comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes and amendments IMO. If you have the "Highlight duplicate links" tool you need to use it. And Mohan & Chopra lacks a publisher and a publisher location. Otherwise it is looking about ready for FAC. You could really do with someone who knows about modern combat and/or jet aircraft looking it over. Do you know any such editors who might oblige? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help! I think it's definitely a large improvement, and I appreciate you working through all that. I still have the new lead to finish, so I'll get that going now that the rest of the article looks like it's in shape. I don't have the "highlight duplicate links" tool, but that seems like something that's very handy. I'll go grab that and use it. And I'll take care of the last few issues like the Mohan/Chopra publisher and the images that haven't yet been verified. I do have a few people I can ask to review it from a more technical point of view, so I will go do that as well. CThomas³ (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images: if I haven't mentioned them, it means that I have checked them and considered them fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry, I meant the three images that you identified but I haven't yet been able to locate an archived copy or suitable alternative for. CThomas³ (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dup link tool: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

"File:Lockheed XF-104 (modified).jpg" Give the original source, not a link to another Commons file.

Fixed.

"File:Lockheed F-104A-15-LO 060928-F-1234S-008.jpg" The source is dead. (404)

Found archived version and updated source.

"File:Dafb-c-124-f-104-1958.jpg" Could we have a page number for the source, like for any other source.

Added.

"File:TF-104G LukeAFB Nov1982.jpeg" The source is dead.

I can't seem to locate an archived copy. In fact the entire website appears to be inaccessible. I tried dimoc.org, which evidently is where you look up VIRIN numbers, and that site appears to be down (but was archived at archive.org on 4 May 2020). I'm hoping this is just a temporary problem.

"File:Chuck Yeager in NF-104.jpg" The source needs a page number, or a more direct link.

Added archive link.

"File:West German F-104 Starfighter.jpg" The source link is dead.

Not having any luck with this site either, or finding an archive. It looks like the entire site has moved to an .edu address, and their online search isn't showing the file. I will try contacting them, but of course they have a COVID-19 notice on their new webpage.

"File:North American XB-70A Valkyrie in formation 061122-F-1234P-035.jpg" The source needs a page number, or a more direct link.

Updated link and included archive link.

"File:Lockheed F-104C Starfighter USAF.jpg" The source link is dead.

Added archive link.

"File:F104s.jpg" The lack of author information is likely to be a problem here.

There appears to be a black-and-white version of this file on Commons, and other F-104S photos as well, so this one can probably be swapped out.

Comments from Nimbus227

Lead

The word 'Lockheed' appears ten times, I'm not sure mention of Johnson's other designs is relevant here.
Citations, can be removed from the lead per MOS:LEADCITE providing the facts are cited elsewhere. Cite number 4 appears after 'Luftwaffe' against WP:REFPUNCT.

If you could help me understand how this citation violates REFPUNCT I'd appreciate it. I am not seeing any restrictions there that would preclude a citation after Luftwaffe. The citation was included because a few editors were debating the accuracy of Luftwaffe vs. German Air Force.

All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies (and also any adjacent punctuation, except as below)... A citation to prove that German Air Force and Luftwaffe are interchangeable is daft, the blue link is enough. It's sometimes known as the Bundesluftwaffe with the whole armed forces being the Bundeswehr.

The footnote in this case does immediately follow the text it applies to (Luftwaffee), and there is no adjacent punctuation for it to be after. My reading of REFPUNCT is that it doesn't prohibit mid-sentence references if there isn't punctuation; it just says that if there is any, it needs to go immediately after it and not before. I'm not arguing that the citation is necessary, and I'm happy to take it out on the basis that it's daft. I just don't see why REFPUNCT would prohibit it, assuming it weren't daft.

Luftwaffe and Bundesmarine (seen later in the article) are foreign words and should be italicised per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
...the F-104S, an all-weather interceptor designed by Aeritalia for the Italian Air Force... is incorrect, it was designed by Lockheed with the test programme flown in the US. They were license produced by Fiat/Aeritalia, 40 of this batch (of 245) were for the Turkish Air Force.
The Florida based F-104s (which is a growing fleet) are not mentioned.

I'm still planning on rewriting the lead in its entirety. I have a draft mostly ready to go, but I'll incorporate these comments.

If a new lead is on the way then there is no point reviewing the current one, this is part of the instability that I mentioned earlier, one of the FA criteria is article stability.

I totally get that. I'm not sure I fully agree that it is 'unstable' per se; the previous reviewer, Gog the Mild, correctly pointed out deficiencies in the lead which I hope to address in a new draft. You've pointed out further deficiencies that I also will take into account. The lead isn't subject to ongoing edit wars and the only "significant change" it is undergoing is in response to the review process.

Instability is not solely edit warring, this article is subject to daily edits, most of them from new editors and IPs, you can imagine that they are not high quality additions. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that there is no mention of the J79 engine in the lead, it wasn't in the previous version either. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background and early development

The image of an XF-104 says 'The XF-104 Starfighter prototype', there were two aircraft, this was the first to be built. The caption implies that there was only one.

Agreed, now says 'The first of the two XF-104 Starfighter prototypes'.

The word 'design' appears 13 times.

Down to 7, with two of them actually "designate/designation" and one part of "Temporary Design Number".

First instance of M61 Vulcan not wikilinked.

Fixed.

Plane, the av project generally uses the internationaly neutral 'aircraft'.
Fixed, though that now makes 10 instances of the word 'aircraft'. Are there any other acceptable terms?

Airplane, airframe, examples, unit. Some words are unavoidable to repeat.

Armament

The image of the M61 states that the aircraft is German Navy, 22+45, F-104G 683-7123 only served with the Luftwaffe (JaboG 36, LVR 1, TSL 3). The caption at Commons makes no mention of the navy?

Yup, I can't see any service with the German Navy either. I hadn't checked that caption evidently. Fixed.

The abbreviations CB and CI are not explained (caccia bombardiere/caccia intercettore).

Both added.
Operational history

The India–Pakistan Wars section is subject to daily edit wars with editors from both sides claiming and counter claiming losses, work to describe the conflict according to reliable sources is rapidly undone. If this section was moved out of the article the edit wars would move with it. The whole section is probably big enough to be split off.

I don't think it's appropriate to remove the section entirely as it's a significant part of its operational history, but I am absolutely open to reducing it. My last attempt at trimming it brought a CTHOMAS3, DON'T TRY TO HIDE FACTS FROM THE WORLD admonishment. Your advice on what to reduce would be welcome.

Not remove, move. There are two articles covering this conflict where they can edit war happily. The whole operational history section can be split in to a new article which is common for aircraft articles. This is encouraged by the summary style guideline.

Agreed, and I would support that. There would still be some mention of it here as part of a short summary, but hopefully it would be minimal enough to substantially reduce the possibility of edit-warring. To be fair, there have only been three full or partial reverts to the India-Pakistan Wars in the past 30 days, and only one additional in the previous 11 months, from 19 total section edits in that time (7 of which are mine).

That's how it works, I've been watching this article for 12 years, fixing the edit wars was one of the reasons I gave up with it. The F-86 Sabre and Folland Gnat articles suffer from the same problem. I notice the main article is edit protected. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German service

The total fatalities of aircrew was 115 plus one ground crew passenger, not 110.

I actually spent quite a bit of time with this one, because sources aren't consistent regarding how many aircrew were killed. Bowman 2000 states twice that 120 Lu/Mfg pilots and ground crew were killed, along with 8 USAF pilots (page 67). Dobrzynski 2015 (page 27) does say 116 pilots; Paloque 2012 (page 46) agrees with this number. Donald 2003 (p. 164) says 110 pilots, as does Fricker and Jackson 1996 (page 92) the magazine article actually referencing the number in the article (though that one just says "about 110"). What I would have expected to be the best source, Kropf 2002, does indeed have a full list of 115 pilots and one passenger in Appendix F on page 164, but 8 of those pilots are listed as USAF, for a total of 108 German aircrew losses. The rest of the sources I have either don't mention a number, or were published before the last German fatality in 1984.

Kropf is the most accurate, the criteria needs to be defined which is lost in German owned aircraft. The USAF crews were either exchange pilots serving Germany or instructor pilots (in German aircraft) at Luke AFB.

I understand that, and I am aware of the background. I was merely pointing out the complete lack of agreement of the numbers across multiple sources.

I've changed the sentence to read "A total of 116 pilots were lost in German F-104 accidents, including 1 ground crew passenger and 8 USAF instructors." and cited it to Kropf.

I skip read from there on and ought to go through the rest of the text another time. In the variants section the NF-104 should be NF-104A. I'm sure there is a guideline that says not to to link the bolded line titles and use Template:Main instead as is done at List of Lockheed F-104 Starfighter variants#XF-104 and others. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the NF-104A, thank you. There is a guideline about not linking section titles at MOS:HEAD, but that is a description list (MOS:DLIST), which as far as I can tell does not speak to whether they should be linked or not. I'm okay with them not being linked at all, but I think adding a bunch of {{Main}}s to it would clutter the list.

Summary style again, the guideline itself is formatted this way. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it has some section headers defined this way, but it does not use any DLISTs that I can see. As I said previously, rather than add {{Main}} templates I would simply prefer to unlink them, as they are all already linked elsewhere anyway. List of Lockheed F-104 Starfighter variants article already provides {{Main}} links as you point out, and we're already in jeopardy of reproducing most of that content here as it is. If anything I'd prefer to make this shorter and include more content on the variants article. CThomas³ (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions thus far! CThomas³ (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A small point I meant to make, the Specs section is cited from 'Quest for performance' which sounds like a fan site but it's actually NASA. I would alter the cite slightly to add credibility to the source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits.

The lead is now seven paragraphs, the maximum recommended for a Featured Article is four. It does contain many specific facts which could be removed or reduced or summarised (per WP:LEAD). A fact not summarised is the current operation by Starfighters Aerospace which has recently added more aircraft and flight training capability.

Thank you for the feedback. I've edited it down a little and fit it into four paragraphs. That's not to say it can't get edited down further, of course, but at least it's hopefully in the ballpark. There is a very short blurb about Starfighters Inc at the end of paragraph three; hopefully that's enough.

The new F-104G development section is mostly accurate but lengthy, at 120 kb the article is over the size recommended for splitting. It is mentioned that the arrestor hook was added during F-104G development, this is incorrect, it was added to late production block F-104A aircraft around 1956, perhaps the source has been misread? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is getting a bit long, and agree that it could be split, especially the operational history section as you recommended earlier. I'll write a new lead section for a spinoff article that will hopefully also work for the summary section here. Regarding the tailhook, here is the relevant text from Kropf 2002, p. 21: Later modifications such as the installation of the arrestor hook, the standby altitude indicator or the engine emergency nozzle closure system were thought of and proposed by the Joint Test Force. I was wondering about that too, but given that the Joint Test Force appears to have been set up some time in either 1959 or 1960 (I can't find a date) and the USAF was still accepting deliveries of F-104As in 1959 (41 of them), I figured it was possible that the tailhook idea actually did come from the F-104G and added to the F-104A also. CThomas³ (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that source and it supports the text as you say, I also have the German language version of that book which states the same. Photos of the first batch of F-104G (Lockheed built) show some aircraft with hooks and some without with no apparent logic. Checking other photos show all earlier types (A, B, C, D, and F) as a mixture of with and without and individual aircraft with and without (so it was retrofitted in service). Odd but not a problem for this article. I corrected 'altitude' to 'attitude', commonly mixed up in aviation. I'm away for a couple of days now, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for verifying that, and "attitude indicator" does make a lot more sense, so thank you for that as well. Have a good break! CThomas³ (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

Oppose I've always found this to be an interesting type of aircraft - on one hand it was an impressive fighter, but on the other hand it was a total deathtrap. As an Australian, I'm glad that the RAAF decided against buying any. I'm afraid that this article needs a fair bit more work to reach A-class, however. I have the following comments:

"seeing widespread service outside the United States. One of the Century Series of fighter aircraft, it was operated by the air forces of more than a dozen nations" - bit repetitive

Agreed, and I have hopefully addressed that with the new lead section.

"A total of 2,578 F-104s were produced by Lockheed and under license by various foreign manufacturers" - this topic deserves more than a sentence: how and where did production take place, what problems were encountered and overcome, etc?

Agreed, I've added a new section on the F-104G redesign and construction.

The material on the F-104G is great, but can more be said about the production of this type in the US? Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. There is also some additional information on further development (F-104S, and several follow-on designs that never made it) that I can add as well. CThomas³ (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More broadly, the article needs more material on how foreign orders eventuated and took place and bids the type lost (such as that for the RAAF) for A-class. Did foreign air forces only select this type due to bribery, or did it fill a legitimate need?

It did fill a legitimate need, and there were some good reasons for its selection. The bribery case cast a large shadow over it, however. I'll include some additional information about that. None of my sources talk much about the bids it lost, but I will see what I can find.

More information on how the plane was selected would be helpful - it would be good to know whether it was selected only as a result of bribery, or whether bribery played a more limited role (e.g. was this a 'thumb on the scales' in a close competition or a total perversion of the selection process which led to an unsuitable type being ordered?) Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I have compiled quite a bit of material and now I have to distill it down to a paragraph or two for inclusion. That's the next section I'll be working on. CThomas³ (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The German order was influenced by a glowing report and recommendation after Werner Panitzki flew the F-104A and other contemporary types in a 'fly off' style competition. The performance figures did exceed the other types and another point he made was that the F-104 was in series production (a proven design) where the other types were not. Oddly, the Wikipedia article on him contradicts this version. I have a copy of his report which is clearly glowing. He broke some teeth in his first F-104 landing. The whole German story could fill an article on its own as could the consortium production effort, a large article was published in Flight magazine with flow charts of which company produced which parts etc, I have it on my hard drive as a PDF but this information is available in some of the books. The Spiegel affair was related indirectly to the F-104 and I believe the same publication ran F-104 headlines in 1966, the peak of the accident rate.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

", which resulted in the F-104 being "placarded"" - what does "placarded" mean? Was this a limit imposed through mechanical means, or a restriction placed on pilots?

It was a restriction placed on pilots, displayed as a printed placard inside the cockpit. I've changed the wording to "design airspeed limitation" and linked it to maneuvering speed, which explains in more detail about the in-cockpit placard.

Actually it was a single red warning light on the instrument panel that illuminated with the word 'SLOW', the limit was the increasing temperature of the engine compressor face. The F-104S was allowed to fly marginally faster. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was both. Upton 2014, for example, mentions the placard specifically in at least two places, and also separately describes the "Slow" light (as does many other references). The "Slow" light, as you point out, was strictly an engine temperature limitation and not technically a speed limitation (though obviously speed is the reason why it is heating). CThomas³ (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upton uses placarded with scare quotes, presumably meaning it is metaphorically placarded by the flight manual and other means. There is a physical placard on the upper instrument panel for empty external tank speed limit and a placard on the left cockpit sill for maximum speeds for landing gear, flaps, drag chute and rain removal operation. On a hot day (+10°) the limit is lowered to Mach 1.8, the slow light would illuminate at the correct speed because of the air data computer. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, he does use "placarded" in quotes when he uses it as a verb, but I just assumed that was because most of us do the same thing when we "verb" words that are normally nouns (see what I did there). In the image on page 24, he refers to the "J79 engine placard speed limit" without the quotes. Regardless, you clearly have better information as to what appeared on actual placards in the aircraft than I do, so if you think the text in the article needs to be changed, I'm open to suggestions. Thank you. CThomas³ (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is OK as it is, it's good that the word placarded is gone as that was copying the source too closely. The wikilink points to maneuvering speed (Va) which is quite different to a maximum speed limit, probably better to unlink it as the wording is clear enough. An aircraft's maximum speed limit is known as Vne (Velocity Never Exceed), mentioned at V speeds, it's not used in any of the sources to my knowledge as the speed limit is variable and related to Mach number (Mmo). It's used more for light aircraft and gliders. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"a peacekeeping mission in Taiwan" - as the US wasn't neutral in this conflict and there was no peace, "peacekeeping" isn't appropriate: this was presumably an attempt to deter the Chinese

"Peacekeeping" was the word used in Davies 2014, but I've changed it to "air defense and deterrence" and provided another reference that described the mission as such.

Why is there a table of losses for USAF Starfighters in combat, but not for the other countries which lost Starfighters in combat?

The only other nation that lost Starfighters in actual combat was Pakistan during the 1965 and 1971 conflicts with India. The Pakistani and Indian accounts differ widely, but the five aircraft in question are all described in the prose of the India–Pakistan wars subsection. Do they need to be in a table as well?

Yes - the US losses are being accorded more article space than those of other countries Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbus227 above has recommended this article be split given its size (120 kB). The operational history section seems to be the prime candidate given it is the largest section and represents about 25% of the article. Replacing it would be a few paragraphs summarizing the entire operational history with a link to the new article; would this be acceptable to you? CThomas³ (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could also just take out the table, and just state the number lost, which I'd suggest doing. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can do that, but do you have an opinion on the split itself? CThomas³ (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The U.S. Air Force was less than satisfied with the Starfighter" - but earlier sections of the article says that the USAF was very pleased with them after the Berlin Crisis?

It performed satisfactorily in both the Taiwan conflict and the Berlin crises, but USAF doctrine had shifted away from air superiority, and it was deemed inadequate for either the interceptor or fighter-bomber mission. I've rewritten the paragraph to hopefully better explain that.

"As of 16 July 2017, both the 4Frontiers Corporation and Star Lab suborbital websites were unresponsive, and there appeared to be no mention of 4Frontiers or the joint project on the Starfighters Inc website.[115]" - as this is cited only to the website, this is original research

Agreed, removed.

The para starting with "The J79 was a brand-new engine" is unreferenced

Somehow missed that, thank you. References added.

The number of people killed in German F-104s is stated twice

Removed the redundant information.

The discussion of the type's safety record should discuss how it compared to equivalent types. For instance, the RAAF lost a high proportion of its Mirage IIIs during the same era, and the RAF and RN had high loss rates of comparable types.

The section does compare the F-104's safety record to the other Century Series aircraft, the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-105, and F-106. None of the sources I currently have did a comparison with any others such as the Mirage III, Lightning, or the MiG-21, which would probably be the best comparisons. I'm not hopeful that there's any data on the MiG, but perhaps there is on the other two.

I've found some information on the Mirage in Australian service and a little bit on the Lightning in RAF service, which I will be adding as well. CThomas³ (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"On 2 November 1959, an F-104 crashed into a house in suburban Dayton, Ohio, killing two young girls and critically burning their mother; the pilot had ejected to safety a half-mile away from the crash site." - is there a reason this particular accident is highlighted? Presumably people were killed on the ground in other Starfighter losses?

I can certainly take it out. I don't have any other reports of a crash killed civilians.

The list of operating nations is unreferenced Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference, thank you.

G'day Cthomas3, because this is your first nom, we've left this open for a fair while, but as it has only attracted one support and has an outstanding oppose and quite a bit to do, unless you can give it some more attention shortly, we might need to archive it, and you can bring it back when you have made some changes? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Peacemaker67 (and Nick-D). My apologies, I somehow missed this entire section when I was away for several days and it evidently fell off my watchlist. I'll address the concerns outlined above as quickly as I can. CThomas³ (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More work is forthcoming, especially on the lead. CThomas³ (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Cthomas3, this is getting very long in the tooth, having been nominated in early May. I see you are working on it a bit, but with one support and one oppose, unless you can make improvements that change Nick's mind in the next week or so, or another reviewer pops up, I'm going to list it for archiving. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Peacemaker67, that's fair. I believe I've addressed most of Nick-D's concerns but I haven't heard from them in a while. There is one critical outstanding item that needs resolving: one reviewer (Nimbus227) has recommended that the operational history section be split into its own article, but I wanted to make sure that Nick was in agreement before doing so, as I didn't want that to result in a failed review. I'll try to get that resolved this week. CThomas³ (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still strongly believe it should be split, operational history, the consortium production effort and the German story at least. As those are created content will reduce in this article, making reviewing difficult until it stabilises. If it makes any decision making easier I would also oppose award of A class status at the moment, perhaps re-review in six months? A comparison might be the Supermarine Spitfire article, it has its own category and navbox which links to eight directly related daughter articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:36, 19 August 2020 (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.