The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well this just passed the GA review. I was told before it even achieved this status that it should go to A-Class review after this because of the quality. I also think that it has potential because I think that it meets the criteria. So here it is, ready for review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, but this article needs a fair bit of work to reach A-class. It provides a good overview of its topic, but it isn't yet an example of Wikipedia's best work. My suggestions for how it could be developed are:
  • The article is currently focused on the highlights of the wing's history. Surely there are some lowlights as well? (eg, poor leaders, poor aircraft, maintainence problems, recruitment/retention difficulties, etc).
  • The lead is rather short, and should be at least two paras
  • The prose is choppy and doesn't read well. Some of the text is unclear (for instance, "In Massachusetts, the Archie Club, composed of former Army Air Service pilots, lobbied for the formation of an air unit for the Massachusetts National Guard. The state had been allotted the entire 26th Guard Division") and there are too many two sentance paragraphs.
  • Material like "The 101st's planes were marked with green stripes on their vertical stabilizers, the 131st with red stripes, and the 138th with yellow stripes" seems to be trivia to me, and should probably be removed unless there's some broader significance.
  • What's meant by saying that the wing was "federally recognized"? - this term probably isn't understood outside of the US.
  • Is this quote really needed: "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us. And, and Nasty even called me on the, radio and said, Duff, you're super. I said yeah, I know. You know, don't worry about it. ... I just wanted to get there". I don't understand what it means, and it detracts from the section on the Wing's role on September 11.
  • Over what time period were "More than 600 wing members were mobilized for Operation Noble Eagle"? Were 600 mobilized at all times, or was this over several months/years?
  • A citation is needed to support the statement that "Locals argued that this would leave a huge gap in the national air defenses." and it may be appropriate to discuss whether there were any different views.
  • I also don't understand what "The wing shared the last months with the F-15 with the 101st Air Refueling Wing, the 103d Fighter Wing, and the 104th Fighter Wing." means. Did these units share aircraft or were they co-located?
  • "On January 24, 2008, the 102nd Fighter Wing officially flew its last patrol mission. " is a bit vague - unless there were any unofficial patrol missions after this date 'officially' should be omitted.
  • "As soon as it was announced that the wing would be kept alive and Otis Air National Guard Base would remain open, people began thinking of the future for the 102nd. There was talk that the wing could transition to an intelligence mission so that it could help support the growing War On Terror. " - this is also vague. Which people were thinking about the unit's future, and who was doing the talking?
  • It would be helpful to explain what's involved with the wing changing from a fighter wing equipped with F-15s to a non-flying intelligence wing. Are the ground crew, etc, being retrained for the new role, or have they been replaced?
  • I note that the section on the unit's current composition states that it is "speculative because accurate data is not out there concerning the units assigned to the wing". This material should be removed unless sources can be provided per WP:PROVEIT and WP:CRYSTAL. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I addressed all the issues that he put down except for number two. It is something that I am a bit unsure of how to do although I have requested help for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support
  • You need citations in the Cold War section, saying that they were neglected.
  • See also: 9/11 conspiracy theories? Eh. If you're going to say that, you need to explain more in the section about what the scrambled planes have to do with conspiracy theories.
  • Perhaps the section title "Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi freedom" is a bit misleading since the unit actually wasn't involved in either of those Operations.

Since you've fixed the problems Nick pointed out, if you fix those and the intro, it'll be better, but in the meantime I am willing to support it only hesitantly. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Now that you've fixed these I like it. Borg Sphere (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.