Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

This is an important, but easily overlooked, topic, and it's good to see the work which has gone into this. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• "for training use" is a bit awkward ("for use in training" is a bit better, but I'd suggest rejigging this sentence to simplify things)
  • Y Re-worded this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Weight reduction was accomplished by removal of all gun turrets and armor plating" - can you explain why there was a need for this? (presumably due to the weight of the atomic bombs).
  • Y. Yes, that's right. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Was it also the case that the USAAF believed that the aircraft would be safe from Japanese attack? (presumably due to the poor state of the country's air defences, and inability to intercept B-29s operating at high altitudes).
  • Y Mostly the very high altitude, which was above the effective ceiling of Japanese flak. It was also hoped that small numbers of bombers would not be considered worth attacking. One B-29 suffered operational damage. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Were the new engines more reliable than the standard B-29 engines? (which was a weak point of the design, and something which was obviously problematic for aircraft which were expected to carry hugely expensive and strategically important weapons)
  • Y The early models had standard engines, which gave the same trouble. One Silverplate was written off after an engine fire in February 1945 destroyed much of the wing. But the later models delivered from July 1945 on had improved engines, which were far more reliable and gave much better performance. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is a bit under-illustrated: you could include photos of how the atomic bombs were loaded into the aircraft, as well as more photos of the aircraft themselves - including the two survivors
  • Y Had to upload some more photographs for this purpose. Hate doing that, because it engages you in endless debate with the deletion brigade. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, same. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Was the 97th Bombardment Wing issued with Silverplate-modified B-29s as part of taking on a nuclear weapon delivery role?
  • Y The 97th was formed in 1947, and seems to have training to bomb the USSR, but only had non-nuclear capable B-29s before it got the ones from the 509th. When reading accounts, it is work remembering that before 1949, the 509th was the only nuclear capable wing in the USAF. There was no need for more planes because there were still more planes than bombs. So in some places you may read about B-29s going to England in 1948; but they were not Silverplated. Anyhow, it was part of a number of wings that received nuclear capable bombers that years as the problems with nuclear weapons were ironed out after Operation Sandstone and the USAF atomic strike force expanded to ten wings. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Can a direct source link be provided for File:B-29-509-walker.jpg ? Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • N No, I cannot find it. It does seem to be available on the original site any more. Do you want it removed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No: it should be PD, and I've had similar problems with link rot from that source. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• All points addressed I hope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]