Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Black Buck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I upgraded this article while working on British logistics in the Falklands War. Or was it V bombers? One of those. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem sources:

• noticiasmilitares: This article is a reprint from Forca Aerea (No. 49), published by the Brazilian Air Force. Original source should be credited.

  YCredited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vulcan To The Sky: minor nonprofit organization with unclear content policies. Effectively self-published. What makes it reliable?

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sunday Express: Per WP:RSP, this source is deprecated. The article is from 2015 so editorial standards were probably not much better than present. Not reliable.

  Y It's listed as "generally unreliable", not deprecated. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Other sources OK.

• No source checks done. buidhe 11:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Really don't think that the aircraft tail codes are necessary at all. We are supposed to summarize this sort of material, IMO. Same with the departure and arrival times.

  While we don't usually give the numbers of famous planes, two of them are famous enough to have their own articles, and none of them have names, so it is hard to carry the narrative without them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's just it; it's perfectly easy to carry the narrative without them. Identify the aircraft that have articles, and their pilots, and drop all the rest. I'm an aviation buff and I couldn't care less what the Victors' tail codes were, nor their pilots. All I'm concerned about is that x Victors accompanied the Vulcans and y had to turn back for problems, etc. This level of detail is most appropriate for a specialized account of the aerial portion of the campaign, not a generalist encyclopedia. Just because it's available doesn't mean it's necessary to incorporate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• J. S. B. Price needs a comma after his last name.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• blocked off with filler

  Y Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphenate non-return valves

  Y Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the link to Air-to-Air refuelling as you've already referred to it as aerial refuelling

  Y Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pilots of the Victors not needed.

  I don't think the planes will fly without them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The twenty-one bombs were dropped using the 90-way system. Redundant, you already told the reader how they were going to be dropped.

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Never in my life have I seen gee forces annotated with this symbology: 2 g0. Just call them Gs or gees with a link.

  Y Apparently, it is the official abbreviation. However, the conversion template has been tweaked. See Template talk:Convert#G-force for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never seen it converted into SI, either, as every aviation writer seems content to explain X multiples bodyweight as something every reader will intuitively understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rowland White offset his name with commas

  Y Offset. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• Link Vice admiral--Sturmvogel 66

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 01:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sturmvogel 66: Just a friendly reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not gonna support or oppose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why not Sturm? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Excessive detail; aircraft serial numbers are entirely unnecessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is understood, and neutral !votes are both acceptable and common. It is understood that there is more than one way to write an article, and that the task of building an encyclopaedia of military history is well beyond the ability of any of us (or, indeed, all of us). There will always be differences of opinion. Bearing in mind that the serial numbers were originally added by another editor and not myself, we have a difference of opinion here involving multiple editors, for which there is no consensus. My personal opinion is that a written compendium of knowledge demands a high degree of detail, and therefore have decided to WP:PRESERVE the serial numbers. This in no way means that I consider Sturmvogel 66's neutral position unreasonable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments:

• "At the time, the British defence planning was focused on the Cold War." - the implication of this could be made clearer: am I right in thinking that little to no preparations had been made to fight around the Falklands?

  Not until March 1982. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted / made clearer that Black Buck 1 was the first significant offensive action made by British forces against the Argentine forces in the Falklands, and marked the start of a series of air attacks and air battles carried out that day (which I am absurdly slowly writing an article on... I might get a wriggle on now this article is in such good shape)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Aside: Woodward's objective for the operations on 1 May was to begin the process of attriting the Argentinian air and naval forces by luring them to attack the British fleet That sounds like an incredibly reckless thing to do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. The British tactics on 1 May were much more aggressive than those they used later in the campaign, and even then they regularly over-estimated their capabilities and under-estimated those of the Argentines (though the British willingness to accept heavy casualties is quite striking to modern attitudes). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The attack was delivered around 0700Z" - can a precise time be given here?

  Cannot find one Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When were the medals for Black Buck 1 awarded? During the war, or as part of the post-war honours?

  Post-war. There was a special edition of the London Gazette on 8 October 1982 with most of the awards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I correct in remembering that the Vulcans were dispatched back to the UK between each mission? (due to the shortage of ramp space at Wideawake Airport)

  I'm not sure what the reason was for the returns to Waddington, whether it was shortage of space at Wideawake or for maintenance, but added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The material on Black Buck Five could more strongly emphasise the importance of the Argentine radar: it was a very good piece of kit which the Argentines were using well. I presume that the Harriers didn't have any anti-radar missiles?

  Added a bit. I have no information about anti-radar missiles for the Harriers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The context for Black Buck Seven could be explained given its different targeting - presumably this was undertaken in support of the ground forces which were on the outskirts of Port Stanley (though it seems an almost absurdly inefficient way of doing so!)

  The sources don't say so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nigel (Sharkey) Ward's views are given strong emphasis, but is he a qualified commentator here? From memory, some of his views have proved controversial, and the statement that the Sea Harriers could have done much more with the same amount of fuel seems a bit odd given that these operations didn't come at the expense of the fuel available to them.

  He was there. I think that the article makes it clear that this debate was part of a long-running dispute between the RAF and the FAA over the relative merits of land and sea-based air power. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1986, Operation Black Buck was referred to in an episode of the BBC sitcom Yes, Prime Minister" - this para needs a reference (from memory, the Yes Minister scripts were published)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Support I think that my comments are met for A-class status. I'd suggest that a bit more work in 'deepening' the article is necessary ahead of a FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some suggestions here in addition to the points above? (About aircraft returning to the UK between each mission, the exact timing of Black Buck One and reasons for the switch in targeting) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article, Hawkeye -- strangely enough, I remember the Yes, Minister episode from my childhood and a few years back, at an RSL meeting in Brisbane, met a retired RAF mechanic who serviced one of the aircraft that took part in the operation. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• there are no dab links and the ext links all work (no action required)
• the opening sentence of the lead seems a bit complex, potentially it could be split
• The objectives of all missions were to attack Port Stanley Airport and its associated defences --> "The objective of all missions was to attack Port Stanley Airport and its associated defences"?

  Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the Vulcans at Waddington was fitted with --> "None of the Vulcans at Waddington were fitted with"?

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the following terms appear to be overlinked: British Army, Vickers VC10, Avro Vulcan, 801 Naval Air Squadron

  Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• could have carried out 785 sorties that delivered --> "could have carried out 785 sorties that would have delivered..."?

  Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• alleged that 'orchestrated attempts' were made by 'the RAF propaganda machine' after the --> double quote marks here?

  Y Yes, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the BBC sitcom Yes, Prime Minister. A British Army general --> italics for the show's name?

  Y Yes, per MOS:ITALICTITLE. Otalicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the table in the Summary section appears to be uncited

  Y Added references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• would cause the Argentinians to --> "Argentineans"? (there are a few other examples of this throughout the article)

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• and what was required for this mission was bombs that would penetrate into the ground --> "as the mission required bombs that would penetrate into the ground

  Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, as always; added my support above now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great article on an interesting operation, which seems like a huge waste of resources to ensure RAF got a guernsey in the war. I have a few comments:

• I've never seen the numero sign without a following period, especially when dealing with wing/squadron numbers. You use a period after the singular numero signs later, so should use a period with Nos. for consistency. There is also an example of No being used without a period

  Y In British English the full stop is omitted because it is not an abbreviation. So "No" and "Nos" are correct. Americans use the full stop on both because they don't understand the language. But on Wikipedia MOS:NUMERO says to include the full stop. Added a couple of missing full stops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• move RAF in full to first mention in the body, and use the initialisation thereafter

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• suggest saying that Ascension is near the Equator in the South Atlantic when first mentioned in the body

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "In March plans were set in motion" March 1982? So before the Argentines invaded? Was there a geo-political reason for this? Argentine threats or something? Seems incongruous as stated.

  Hmmm Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This para needs reorganising, starting with the fact that the planners were doing regular reviews of the threats, and the RAF looked at missions to the Falklands, then mention the invasion etc. The way it is currently ordered doesn't work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have re-ordered it as suggested, added a bit about intelligence warnings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Sturm that the aircraft numbers in the prose are unnecessary detail, per criteria A2, affect readability and obscure the important facts. Nothing is lost if they are removed.

  It becomes treacherous in places without them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there are clear ways of explaining which aircraft is involved in a particular mission (where that is really necessary, in many places it isn't needed at all in order to tell the story) without the mass use of aircraft numbers. They clag up the article and interrupt the prose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not that I haven't considered this. In some places they can be omitted, in some the aircraft can be referred to generically, in some the name of the pilot can be substituted; that leaves us with things like the Black Buck Three section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  While I think you could get away without them in Black Buck 3, I think all the unnecessary use should be omitted. There is certainly no need to list the numbers of all the aircraft involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Very well. I have removed the aircraft numbers from the text. They remain in the table and captions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NATO in full at first mention

• Y Done. A peculiar one in that the abbreviation is better known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AFAIK, it is Argentinians or Argentines, not Argentineans, and Argentinian or Argentine not Argentinean

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• when the planning was being done, did they assess what the effect of a single crater in the airfield would be?

  I presume so, although the sources don't say. It would depend on the engineering equipment on hand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• why were the Yanks consulted about using Ascension for offensive purposes?

  Added "as Wideawake was technically a USAF base" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "take out the airfield radars " is a bit colloquial

  Y Changed to "suppress". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "were forced to remain airborne" and presumably it could not dump the bombs into the sea due to their scarcity, and they had to burn through enough fuel so that it was light enough to land?

  Y Added that the Vulcan did not have the ability to dump fuel. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "One bomb exploded on the runway and caused a large crater which proved difficult to repair" but it was back in action overnight?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the Shrike image seems misplaced in the Black Buck One section given it was a bombing mission

  Y Moved the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the Black Buck One awards para seems out of place, especially given Withers flew another mission which presumably contributed to his DFC. Suggest moving it to the Effect section.

  His DFC is entirely for Black Buck One. See the citation for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "to explode in mid-air" to "to air burst" and link

  Y Changed and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• deitalicise "The military effectiveness of Black Buck"

  Y De-italicized. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "early flights were suspended" early flights? early morning flights? I assume because the Black Buck missions were presumably all timed to hit Stanley in the early morning?

  Y Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• suggest "Ward dismissed as RAF propaganda the claim that the raids led to fear of attacks on the mainland:"

  Y Uh okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Royal Navy continued attackinged Port Stanley"

  Y Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• perhaps add that Belgrano was a light cruiser and de Mayo an aircraft carrier

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed a couple of typos etc. Supporting, great job on this Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are PD except the aerial reconnaissance one which has an appropriate NFR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]