Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit

Northrop B-2 Spirit was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 8, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northrop B-2 Spirit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 22, 2008, November 22, 2011, November 22, 2013, and November 22, 2018.

Engines?

Why does this article apparently contain no detail of the plane’s engines? This information appears to be given at https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-2-stealth-bomber/b-2-technical-details/ Gsoper (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article says "Powerplant: 4 × General Electric F118-GE-100 non-afterburning turbofans, 17,300 lbf (77 kN) thrust each", and links to the General Electric F118 article. So there is a whole article about the engines. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I can see the reference to powerplant now and I can also see how I missed it in the Specification section. I expected to find some mention of them in the Sesign section and visually scanned that section (on the mobile view), found nothing and then searched the article for the word ‘engine’, again finding nothing. It does feel like something of an omission and maybe some more obvious mention could be made? Gsoper (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Crash' vs 'accident'

Hi @Fnlayson, I saw you reverted my edit. Can you explain what you mean by "more formal wording"? Crash is a perfectly acceptable term for the incidents contained in the section, and probably the more correct one. Please see the MOS discussion and recent writing on the use of the word "crash" vs "accident." Unless a source in the article is directly using the word "accident" we should be using the word "crash" with rare exceptions.

Additional reading here:

https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/associated-press-collision.php

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"Accident" revisited Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for bringing this to your talk page instead of here initially. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Aircraft project guidelines (WP:Air/PC) lists a section label of "Accidents and incidents" (or just Accidents) for aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll open a discussion there. Hopeful to hear your input. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some inconsistencies

In the specifications section, it is listed as being capable of officially 18,000kg payload and estimated 23,000 kg max payload. Simultaneously, it is said to be capable of carrying 2 GBU 57s, each being 14,000 Kg. I dont know if this would be OR or can fall under WP:SKYBLUE, but atleast one of those figures needs correction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming the article "Northrop B-2 Spirit"

From what I've observed, aircraft article names generally use the prime contractor at the time of design/production, designation, and sometimes the official name. The principle B-2 team consisted of Northrop, Boeing, Hughes, and Vought, and the aircraft was built from 1987 to 2000. While Northrop Grumman was formed in 1994 following Northrop's acquisition of Grumman, the bulk of the design work and the first few aircraft were built before the acquisition occurred. Wouldn't it make sense for Northrop to be in the article title instead of Northrop Grumman? See General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, another aircraft where production transferred from GD to Lockheed in 1993, but the article title still reflects the original designer. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. Schierbecker (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 09:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 17:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Czarking0 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"equivalent to US$1300 million in 2021" - I know these tools are finicky but try to make this billions. "The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion" - Is there a reason 2004 is particularly notable? Also this section could use some graphs about projected vs actual, over time, procurement vs maintenance, maybe you have some additional ideas? "during the first two weeks of a conflict" - I assume this is Kosovo but the reader has no idea what conflict is being discussed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"As of 2011, the AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile is an upcoming standoff munition to be deployed on the B-2 and other platforms.[96] This is to be followed by the Long Range Standoff Weapon, which may give the B-2 standoff nuclear capability for the first time." - This does not align with the claims in the led and the claims themselves are fairly out of date. I would consider combining the "Opposition" and "Program costs and procurement" sub sections. The story may be more illuminating if the dates for the information in these two sections are side by side. "In 1998, a Congressional panel advised" - This feels like it does not really fit in this section?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Is fas.org WP:RS? My gut says yes but I do think they are a POV organization.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvivo shows a possible violation for joebaugher.com which I agree has too many too close phrasing. Also this does not appear to be WP:RS
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"evidence of flaws in the aircraft's ability to elude detection by radar" - can you elaborate about the major pieces of evidence that were brought to the public's attention? Does the Northrop lobbying play a significant role in the procurement/opposition history? What about a map of where parts were made vs where senators voted against B2 funding? Several of the extension contracts such as DMS-M do not name which private companies were partnered with. If this info is available I would presume it was notable given the attention to private partners in other sections
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"In 1995, Northrop made a proposal to the USAF to build 20 additional aircraft with a flyaway cost of $566 million each." - Was not sure which section to put this in but if this is notable than you should cover what happened to the proposal. Otherwise, this probably does not need to be included?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	@DeadlyRampage26: At first glance I do not see you was a significant contributor to this article. Can you clarify if you meet the nomination criteria WP:GAN "Any significant contributor to an article may nominate it" Czarking0 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hello. I may not meet the criteria after hearing this but I will check soon to confirm thankyou. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just reminding you that I am still expecting a response here Czarking0 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man sorry for keeping you waiting I've been doing with some other stuff. In line with the rule you mentioned I am probably unable to have submitted this properly considering I was not a significant contributor to the page. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am going to fail this review but I appreciate you bringing it up and look forward to your other contributions Czarking0 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]