The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [1].

---

Northrop YF-23[edit]

Northrop YF-23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Northrop YF-23/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...the article had recently passed a MilHist A-class review with five unanimous supports, which gave me great confidence that it can go one better. I believe the article has met every FA criterion, but it's the community's thoughts that count, so please write down whatever you think about the article, no matter if they're positive or negative. I'd like to thank user Fnlayson for sticking by me for much of the article's development. Cheers! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why WIKICUP nominators are still not self-identifying? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I forgot. This is a WikiCup nomination. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't include harv links in Bibliography if they're not linked in footnotes
• Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized or note
• When a source includes info like page numbers, it's good practice to include it
• Don't italicize publisher names. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose Comments on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you guys find something that indicates whether the two YF-23s are still on exhibit at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force?
• Okay, there's nothing currently in WP:AVIMOS about this; I'll describe the general problem, you tell me what solution you want. Proposals and articles by engineers are often vague about whether they have a concept, a design, a non-working prototype or a working prototype, and their language reflects this vagueness. I don't have any doubt that your sources use "YF-23" to refer to all four stages, but to most readers, the distinction will matter. I don't see a particular solution in the popular style guides, and I don't want to cite a technical style guide on this, so my proposal is that the common name (YF-23 in this case) will refer to one aircraft if at least one was actually built and is mentioned in the article; use for instance "series" when talking about both aircraft, and use words like "design", "proposal" or "submission" for events before the prototype was built. I'll make the edits; feel free to revert, but don't keep the language that hides the distinctions ... that is, don't use "YF-23" to mean all of the above. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: it looks like we're now going with "YF-23" for the model, and something else for an individual aircraft. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been that way, possibly with a couple exceptions that were missed. And model = aircraft type. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "YF-22" is a judgment call; there's an argument that "to develop the YF-23 series, while Lockheed ... developed the YF-22." is nonparallel, but I don't buy the argument. Since the specific YF-22 prototypes aren't mentioned, I don't think there's enough room for misunderstanding to avoid the simpler "YF-22" throughout. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, I have no clue what you're talking about? What series? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with the use of "U. S. Air Force" (without defining the acronym), "Air Force" and "USAF" all in the first section below the lead, because the lead defines the acronym. I think the arguments would be that there's not much room for misunderstanding, that variation can be good, and that the acronym is more suitable adjectivally. But there are other opinions on the proper use of acronyms; if anyone has a problem with this style, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1981, the U.S. Air Force began forming specifications": What did they do, exactly? - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed "began forming specifications for" to "made its first request for"; change it (to something specific) if that's not accurate. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Switching to oppose; at the moment, I'm concerned there may be more to do here than I'll have time to do, but I'll keep plugging away. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My word "series" was the wrong word ... sorry. But it's confusing to use one name to mean two different things, especially in the same or an adjacent sentence, so if you want "YF-23" to mean the model or the aircraft generally, then let's use something like "one of the YF-23 prototypes" to refer to a specific aircraft, not "the YF-23". I'll make the edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The two YF-23s were essentially identical except for different engine types. So no "series" or anything like that (no idea where that came from). Wording such as "the YF-23" refers to the aircraft type. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The U.S. Navy considered using one of the ATF aircraft to replace the F-14": I'm guessing that doesn't mean what it says; they weren't considering using just one plane, were they? - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That means what it says. The Navy would use either the YF-22 or YF-23 (ATF aircraft) for a naval fighter. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So, "one of the aircraft" means multiple aircraft? Odd. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "This would add a further 546 aircraft to the production program along with": "add", "further", and "along with" are triply redundant. It's sometimes hard to avoid using two of these, but you don't need all three. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It means 1/one/singular type of aircraft as I already stated. Done.. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not following, but yes, it looks good now. - Dank (push to talk)

• "For other uses, see F23": For other uses of "F23"? F23 isn't mentioned in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "are on exhibit in museums as of February 2009": "were". Better would be to find out if they're still being exhibited, but I'm only commenting on the grammar.
• "The Lockheed and Northrop proposals were selected on 31 October 1986 to undertake a 50-month demonstration phase, culminating in the flight testing of two prototype models, the YF-22 and the YF-23.": I don't know what this means. My best guess is: The Lockheed and Northrop proposals were selected as finalists on 31 October 1986. Both companies were given 50 months to build and flight-test their prototypes, and they succeeded, producing the Lockheed YF-22 and the Northrop YF-23. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A better link for the WMOF is http://www.wmof.com/display.htm. Your link gives an image of and story about the YF-23 ... and you'd think that would be the same thing as saying it's currently on display, but GLAMs can be sneaky about this stuff, especially on websites ... they'll give a story about something exciting they used to have or hope to have, and forget to mention that they don't actually have it. The link I gave should be good enough; it says the aircraft is currently on display, and although the website wouldn't be considered a reliable source for some purposes, it ought to be reliable for this purpose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The aircraft has returned to the museum's new location ...": See WP:DATED.
• "all-aspect stealth": I don't know what "all-aspect" means in this context.
  • I took a guess on this one, and changed "all-aspect stealth" to "to reduce the model's susceptability to infrared and radar detection." If "all-aspect" is something more than marketing blather, if it's a technical specification that includes other forms of stealth, please add the other forms. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The USAF increased the runway distance requirement from 2,000 to 3,000 feet (610 to 914 m) in 1987, so thrust reversing was no longer needed. However, the engine nacelles were not downsized to match on the YF-23 prototypes.": What nacelle size has to do with thrust reversing won't make much sense to people other than engineers and aviation fans. It's not a stretch to figure out what thrust reversing is, and why the runway wouldn't need to be as long if you had it, but if a general reader doesn't have to figure things out on their own, that's always a plus. This might be a little easier for the general reader: The USAF initially expected that the aircraft would have to reverse the flow of their engines after landing so that they could stop within 2,000 feet (610 m). Later, in 1987, the USAF determined that 3,000-foot (914 m) runways would generally be available, so that the engines would not be required to reverse thrust, and their nacelles (housing) could be made smaller. ["housing" feels like a fairly common word to me, certainly more common that "nacelles", but there are still a fair number of readers who wouldn't immediately recognize it; suggestions?] - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "was a charcoal gray": was charcoal gray
• "— the latter": There shouldn't be a space after em-dashes per WP:EMDASH, but also per that link, this should be a comma rather than a dash, since the sentence has no other commas.
• "resembling the underbelly marking of the black widow spider ...": the hourglass is on their backs, not their bellies, that I'm aware of.
• "The second prototype was two-tone gray colored and was nicknamed "Gray Ghost". The second prototype was two shades of gray, nicknamed "Gray Ghost".
• "substantial area-ruling, and an all-moving V-tail.": You lost me. Per WP:Checklist, if many readers won't even be able to guess what the sentence means without clicking, give at least a clue to the meaning in the text in addition to the link.
• "Similar to the B-2, the exhaust ...": This style is so common that it can't be considered wrong IMO, but the job of a copy editor is to shoot for making everyone happy, and many style guides still advise that this would be wrong because "similar" dangles, that is, the B-2 is an aircraft, which isn't similar to exhaust; its exhaust is similar to exhaust. One easy fix: "The same as on the B-2, the exhaust ...". (This is right if it was the same, in the sense that the exhaust flowed through troughs lined with heat-ablating tiles.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The vehicle management system coordinated movements of the control surfaces for maneuvers and for stable flight, along with other aircraft functions." I would probably delete this sentence. Some readers won't be able to make sense of it, and to some, all it will say is "the aircraft's movement is controlled by the parts that control movement".

• I think it should be kept to tell the reader that the surfaces are controlled by a central management system. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better, I used that wording. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The wing flaps and ailerons deflected inversely": I'd go with something like "Raising the wing flaps and ailerons on one side and lowering them on the other" if that's right; not many readers will understand "deflected inversely".
• "rotating both V-tails inward or outward ...": Be consistent on whether you describe this as two V-tails or as both sides (would "fins" be right?) of one V-tail. And ... we're talking about rotating the two sides up or down, right? "Inward" might mean swinging the surfaces to the front or rear. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the correction. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "moving them in the opposite manner.": moving them in an opposing manner, or more simply, moving one up and one down. It's not clear what the "opposite" of "inward or outward" is.
• "on both sides simultaneously": I don't think this is a big deal, but if I leave it, someone's going to come by and say I got it wrong: "simultaneously" isn't needed here.
• "Although the YF-23 featured an advanced design, in order to keep costs relatively low, ...": I think this is clearer: "To keep costs low despite the novel design, ...". (But, for the "in order to" haters, note that a substitution of "to" in the original sentence would have completely mangled the meaning.)
• "nose wheel unit": I'm having a hard time guessing what, or even where (nose? wheel?), that is. Just a few extra words would help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Two aircraft were built. The first ...": Since you've already said that two were built, maybe: "Of the two aircraft built, the first ..."
• "high tempo combat demonstration": I don't know what that means. High speed?
  • I see there's disagreement; I'll try "fast-paced". - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The YF-23s flew 50 times for a total of 65.2 hours.": There isn't a perfect answer here, I'd just like you to be aware that there's always a little room for tension or misunderstanding if we try to use "YF-23" to mean the model and a single aircraft, especially in the same or an adjacent sentence. We could emphasize that we're talking about both aircraft here by saying "The two YF-23s", and it's not totally clear whether each flew 50 times ... I'm guessing it was a total of 50 times, so say that: "The two YF-23s flew for a total of 50 times and 65.2 hours."
• "The contractor teams used evaluation results in their proposals submitted to win the contract ATF production.": This could mean one of two things with different shades of meaning; better would be either "in their submitted proposals to ..." or "in the proposals they submitted to ...".
• "The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22 was more agile.": I talked about this a little bit above ... engineers are terrible about saying design when they mean prototype and vice-versa, and I don't fault you for following your sources ... but I think it's really unlikely that the USAF studied the design and decided that they thought it would probably be faster, when they had an aircraft sitting outside that could (and did) fly to test it out. So, something like: "They determined the YF-23 to be stealthier and faster, but selected the YF-22 as it was more agile." - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "YF-119": it would probably be better either to add a hyphen where this appears above or subtract the hyphen here, in case readers need to search to remember what this means.
• "to power production F-22s;": since "power production" has its own meaning, and since "production" as an adjective is kind of engineer-ese, I think I'd go with "to power new F-22s", with "for production F-22s" as a second choice.
• "the calibration of strain gauge results and loads": lost me.
• Sandy has already mentioned (below) the problem with the one-paragraph Possible revival section.
• In Aircraft on display, I think you guys aren't getting the main point of WP:DATED: "is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force near Dayton, Ohio. The aircraft was recently put on display following restoration and is located in the museum's Research and Development hangar as of 2009." You're giving 3 different times. Also: "The aircraft has returned to the museum's new location ...": Say that it returned on a certain date and is still there as of a certain date.
• That's all for now. I'm going to switch my oppose to a neutral, since I had time to get to the end, and I can see myself supporting if I'm happy with the results. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• We may need to get moving on this to avoid a non-promotion here at FAC; I'll ask for help at WT:MIL. I and others have been getting reverted often enough, and there have been enough misunderstandings here and at A-class, that it seemed like a safer bet to comment rather than to edit directly, but that means there's a lot left to do. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing, nearly done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do aviation articles generally list the serial numbers in two different sections (Aircraft on display, Development) in the main text? Would it be possible to move them from one of those sections to General characteristics? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Sandy's puzzlement over "requirement"; I think the problem is that the word is used in two different senses, "designed to meet USAF requirements for survivability ..." vs. "a USAF requirement for an interim bomber". I'll substitute "request" for the second sense; feel free to substitute a better word. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "to study techniques for the calibration under predicted loads to measured flight results": This doesn't sound quite right to me; what were they trying to do? - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "a long-range bomber with a much greater range": That may be necessary, but since any bomber with a much greater range would be a long-range bomber, at least consider: "a bomber with a much greater range".
• Now supporting, but have a look at these last two points anyway. Great work, and I'm learning a lot, which may come in handy since I see you guys are working on a lot more articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for unwittingly creating so much work! You're right, I am working on many articles. Hint: watchlist Mikoyan Project 1.44. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Status report: I had to look at a lot of the sources just to get the copyediting done (groan), and in the process, I found no close paraphrasing or infidelities. I can do more spotchecking if anyone likes, and Nikki hasn't specifically revisited her concerns from Aug 20; otherwise, this one appears ready for takeoff. I dealt with Sandy's concerns, and I see no unresolved comments on this page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only references that look a bit odd are the ones with the author lists: "Rich, Michael and William Stanley" and "Jenkins, Dennis R. and Tony R. Landis". The article should probably be consistent about the last name/first name ordering. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Media Review - Everything checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with nitick - overall I think this is a well written and comprehensive article that meets the FA criteria. One minor bone I have to pick however is the frequent use of very technical language with no explanation of what it means for a simple layman such as myself. For example, the exhaust is described as having "heat ablating tiles" which help the plane leave a lower heat signature. What this actually means however is not especially clear, and is reliant on the linked article on ablation being of a high enough quality for me to be able to work it out for myself. I would much prefer it if the article had a very brief sentence explaining what this was to complement the link. Anyway, that aside, based upon the FA policies I would support the promotion of this article. Coolug (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decipher what this paragraph is trying to say at all:

In late 2004, Northrop Grumman proposed a YF-23-based design for the USAF's interim bomber requirement, a role for which the FB-22 and B-1R were also competing.^[1] Northrop modified aircraft PAV-2 to serve as a display model for its proposed interim bomber.^[2] The interim bomber requirement has since been canceled in favor of a more long-term bomber replacement requirement, although the same YF-23-derived design could have been adapted to fulfill this role as well.^[3] However, the possibility of a YF-23-based interim bomber ended with the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which favored a long-range bomber with a much greater range.^[4][5]

What is an "interim bomber requirement" and how can a design fulfill it? After that, I can't sort out at all what the paragraph is saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In early 2004, the USAF requested proposals from industry for an interim bomber with the capability to strike at the most demanding targets, intended to enter service in 2015, to fill the gap between its existing bomber fleet and a next-generation bomber planned for service entry in 2037.[2] As one of its responses to this request, Northrop Grumman proposed a derivative of the YF-23 to meet this requirement.[3] - Is that any clearer?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh ???

Some specifications are estimated.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The prose here needs attention for jargon and elegance-- sample in the lead:[reply]

The two YF-23s were donated to museums and are now exhibits.

There is surely a more elegant way to say "and are now exhibits" (which engages MOSDATE#Precise language btw).

Another random sentence:

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force began forming a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) as a new air superiority fighter to replace the F-15 Eagle.

Began forming a requirement? A copyedit by fresh eyes is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These problems and more have now been fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were sufficiently, if not always completely satisfactorily addressed. I suspect that many more details could be added, if it weren't for security restrictions. Hence, this is probably as close as the article can come to satisfying 1b. With that in mind, I give it my support. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have just a few concerns:

• "Afterward, Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics formed a team that would develop any one of their proposals, if selected." It's a minor point, but the word "Afterward" seems somewhat misleading here. Clearly this must have happened between July and October, 1986. Can a more specific date be given? I don't thing this should imply the team would select which one of their designs they would build. Instead, it should indicate they would work together to build the selected design from among their proposals.
  • Not misleading at all. The five companies turned in proposals in July, then they formed two teams before the selection was made in Oct. The dates are not critical info. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Afterward' could have meant at any time, including post-selection. Ergo it was misleading. The rewording is acceptable for the first part of the concern. RJH (talk)
      • I've resolved my concern with a copyedit.
• "Both companies were given 50 months to build and flight-test their prototypes, and they succeeded, producing the Lockheed YF-22 and the Northrop YF-23." This doesn't come across as the best-written sentence, so perhaps it could be improved? Does this statement mean that the teams did not work together to produce the prototypes, or should it say "teams" instead of "companies"?
  • Sorry, that was my wording, good catch. I've changed "companies" to "teams". - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I think it was the tense mismatch that was bothering me; I've addressed that. RJH (talk)
• "American reconnaissance satellites first spotted the advanced Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighter prototypes in 1978, which caused concern in the U.S." Why? A few more details about the threat posed would help here, so that the reader can understand why a new fighter was perceived as necessary.
  • Addressed with a cited addition. RJH (talk)
• "...meet USAF requirements for survivability..." This requirement is vague so it could use a little clarification. Since it is listed separately from stealth, I assume this means the ability to avoid enemy fire or survive a hit? Or does it mean the ability of the pilot to escape the destruction of the aircraft? It seems essential to make this clear since these are the basis of the final selection.
  • I've addressed this WP:Jargon with a wikilink. RJH (talk)
• "It featured a tricycle landing gear configuration with a nose landing gear and two main landing gear." Please clarify that "It" means the aircraft, rather than the cockpit as is implied.
  • Fixed. RJH (talk)
• "The Air Force selected the YF119 engine to power the F-22 production version; the Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney designs had higher technical ratings, were considered lower risks, and were considered to have more effective program management." Wait, is this sentence mixing a discussion of the engine and the aircraft? If so, why was the YF-22 considered to have a higher technical rating if it had poorer stealth and velocity? What were the risk factors for the selection?
  • I've fixed the ambiguity, but the "higher technical ratings" statement is still vague. RJH (talk)

Regards, RJH (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.