Misplaced Pages

Talk:Project Kingfisher

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
A fact from Project Kingfisher appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2018/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Project Kingfisher; AUM-N-4 Diver; AUM-N-6 Puffin; SUM-N-2 Grebe.
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / World War II / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Suggestions

G'day, nice work on this article. Definitely close to B class, IMO, but I wonder if maybe it gives the appearance of focusing too much on the individual weapons developed, rather than the project itself. In this regard, I wonder if it might be an improvement to reorganise the article a little. In this regard, I'd suggest maybe adding a "Weapons developed" section (level 2 header), with Kingfisher A to F as level 3 headers underneath that. I would also suggest maybe adding an "Aftermath" section (level 2 header), which outlines the costs involved (if known), when the project ended and why, and potentially what project followed it. The Background section could potentially include details about any key people who were involved, how the project was managed, and where it was carried out (locations). Anyway, I hope these suggestions help a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

They're greatly appreciated. That might be a good formatting idea; it's a bit complex because Kingfishers C to F were built and have their own articles, but A-B were only minor projects as part of the development; then again, that might make it more likely to work this way. Unfortunately, as for the rest, there's very little, but I think I can draw on the NBS results to mention the involvement of Dryden and Condon, I'll see what I can get done tonight. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries, your changes look good. Thanks for you work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem! Thanks for the help. If I can grab Friedman via interlibrary loan I can try to push for more later. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories: