# Talk:Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

I see that this section has the comment text:
All content about the aircraft in fictional and gaming use has been moved to Aircraft in fiction, please see WP:AIRPOP
I've put the mention of Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters in here because as far as I can tell, a musical recording doesn't count as fictional or gaming use. If I've got it wrong, please let me know so I don't repeat the mistake. Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

it's a commentary on the crash record, Lockheed bribery scandal etc with fictional elements but it's not an academic analysis either. I agree it's definitely not in the A-robot-turns-into-a-plane-that-looks-a-lot-like-it category of media appearances.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting.
I feel I should mention (since this is the talk page) that Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters is a lot more than just that - although obviously nothing remotely like a formal analysis. If you ask me, it skewers almost everything that gets a look-in - pilots, mechanics, the uncouth Biergarten type, aircraft designers, and so on; and references all sorts of aspects of culture all over the place.  You could write a dissertation on it, as a significant cultural artefact of its time, if you were that way inclined.
But judgements like that aren't relevant here: where does the link belong, that's the question.  Should relevant musical albums turn up in this sort of place?  Or perhaps the article 'Aircraft in fiction' needs to be given an extended range - or maybe just a range description that's comprehensible by bears of lesser brain such as myself.
Okay, okay, I've got Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters on vinyl and CD and first listened to it in the mid 1980s. But right here and now: where should this link go? Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lockheed F-104 Starfighter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Picking this one up.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The first thing we need to do is bring the article up to B class. That means we need references for:

Second paragraph of "Armament"
 Done. Could not verify this in any of my offline sources or with anything I could find online, so I have removed it.
Second paragraph of "Berlin Crisis of 1961"
 Done.
First paragraph of "Other international service"
 Done.
First paragraph of "Use as space launch platform"
 Done, though I would be okay with simply removing this paragraph as well if that would be preferable.
First paragraph of "Flying characteristics"
 Done. Modified as needed, and removed what I could not verify.
QF-104A, F-104B, F-104C, F-104DJ, F-104F, RF-104G, TF-104G, F-104H, F-104N, F-104S-ASA/M, CF-104 and CF-104D sections of "Variants"
 Done. Also noticed that the F-104G and F-104J sections needed references and included them as well.
First paragraph of "Aircraft on display"
 Done.
Several of the "Nicknames"
 Done. Removed what I could not verify and added the backstory I found on the most common nickname.
The "Notable appearances in media" section is empty. Do we need it?

More to come  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll get to work on obtaining the listed references. Regarding the Notable appearances in media section, I'm happy to remove it, but that's how the WikiProject Aircraft content guide says to construct it if there is a corresponding section at Aircraft in fiction (see WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Notable appearances in media). CThomas3 (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I thought you might have overlooked it.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. No. I purposefully left it blank after moving all of the existing content to Aircraft in fiction a while back. CThomas3 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe I'm now finished with all of the references; if I'm missed any, or if you need me to clarify anything or provide any additional details, I'm happy to take care of it. Please also let me know if there's anything else I need to add or clean up with respect to any of the other criteria. CThomas3 (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Happy to keep the review on hold for an extended period.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Should this article include the XB-70 photo in the §Safety section?
It's a well-known photo and highly relevant to the XB-70 article. However is it also relevant here?  The F-104 is widely seen as an "unsafe" aircraft (however true, false or narrowly specific that is) and this photo adds to that. However, is that warranted?  Is there any indication that the XB-70 crash was due to the F-104's characteristics? So should we give that impression? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's equally relevant to this article as well. The safety record section covers mainly the accident rates of the various operators (it doesn't attempt to address the "why", just the "what") and then lists some of the notable pilots who lost their lives. The photo was added to support the text regarding one of these pilots, Joseph A. Walker, who was flying the F-104 that day. While the collision wasn't due to an inherent design flaw of the F-104 or anything like that (or of the XB-70, for that matter), it certainly was a notable accident and covered in some detail in multiple Starfighter-specific sources. What's currently in the article and in the caption are what I would consider to be neutral statements about the two aircraft colliding, with no attempt to assign blame or cause. CThomas3 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tom, here we go:

"became widely used as a fighter-bomber" I am not sure that it was widely used; perhaps something like 'was frequently deployed in a fighter-bomber role'?
"it was developed into an all-weather fighter in the late 1960s. It was originally developed by" It would be nice to replace one of these with a synonym.
The first paragraph of the lead jumps around chronologically. Any chance of rearranging the sentences in date order?
"who contributed to the development of" Maybe 'who also contributed to the development of'?
"his outspoken opposition to the selection of the F-104" Selection of the F-104 as what?
"The final production version of the fighter model was" If this was the final production version, then "of the fighter model" should be deleted.
Overall the lead seems short for a 8,000+ word article. I note that it contains nothing on "Operational history" or "Flying characteristics" which occupy a lot of the main article. Are you happy that it meets MOS:LEAD, especially re being "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
I have also made some copy edits. Shout if you are unhappy with, or don't understand the rationale for, any of them.
I shall continue working through the article, but just based on the lead, I don't think that it is currently FAC-ready. I would recommend putting it into MilHist's A class review system. You can do this straight away, and my comments would become a formal review. (Feel entirely free to partially QPQ by reviewing my current ACRs Battle of the Lipari Islands and First Punic War  .) There is more slack in the ACR process and it is accepted that articles may need more work. I would also recommend that you find at least one subject expert - which I am not - to review it. If you don't have at least a couple of editors lined up willing to review this once it gets to FAC then can I recommend that you commence searching.
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gog the Mild, for the initial review. Admittedly I didn't spend a great deal of time revising the lead, and I agree with all of your edits to it. It will not be difficult to add a summary of the sections you mentioned, and make it more chronologically consistent. For the most part I do think it meets the intent of MOS:LEAD, but it certainly could meet it better.I'm happy to go through an A-class review. Regarding editors for FAC: how many editors are typically needed? CThomas3 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
OK. Well get it nominated - see here. Ah, you are ahead of me.
Assuming that editors step forward to do the source and image reviews, which are relatively specialist, at least four others; more would be better, although if it has successfully gone through an ACR then four or five will probably do. I will be one. It is difficult to know how many editors would be spontaneously interested - the length and specialised nature of the article will count against it; as will it being your first - they are harder work; and as, I assume, you won't have reviewed others' FACs, there won't be any feeling of "owing you a favour". Actually, formally reviewing a few FACs against the criteria is a good way to get a grip on them.
Let's see how the ACR goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be a clear link to the A class review, should it be in the header boxes? There are quite a few factual errors, I can review the article but I stopped editing it many years ago due to daily instability. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Nimbus227, there is a link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. It's under the MILHIST banner, underneath the "Additional information..." section. I agree that it's a bit hidden where it is.

I would absolutely welcome the review; I'm hoping I've fixed most/all of the factual errors, as I spent several months collecting as many of the available sources as I have been able to get my hands on (27 through interlibrary loan at last count, plus whatever was available online). If there were things I couldn't reference, I have taken them out, and if there were discrepancies in the sources, I have tried to include only what the sources have mostly agreed upon. CThomas3 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It is very hidden, the box is closed by default and it's not immediately clear that the black 'additional information' text also needs to be opened. Not sure where would be best to list my comments, here, the review or a sandbox page. I have sheparded two articles through the Featured Article process so I also know what is required for that standard. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and that's probably something we should point out at WT:MILHIST. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated in whatever form they come; adding them to the review page would work just fine, I would think. Your advice and assistance for the FA process would also be extremely helpful. CThomas3 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph starting "On 7 September 1965, a Griffin F-104A flown by Flight Lt. Amjad Hussein Khan intercepted 6 Indian Dassault Mysteres..." is totally incorrect. 12 IAF Mystere aircraft of No 1 Sqn IAF were detailed for the dawn attack, but four got lost in the dark in the pre-dawn zero R/T take off and returned to base. A lone Mystere flown by Sqn Ldr Tubby Devayya had taken off three minutes after the last foursome as standby to the mission, instead of staying on the ground, making it a 13-aircraft mission.  My CO and Flt Cdrs took part. Sqn Ldr Handa and his foursome (Nos 9-12) got lost. NINE aircraft attacked Sargodha, eight of which exited safely. Amjad Hussain, who was the least experienced in the F-104 Sqn, was one of a pair of F-104s scrambled. They took off in the three minute interval between the first two sets of four Mysteres. This was to be a futile chase of aircraft exiting at high speed in different directions in pairs, BENEATH radar cover. The CAP controller picked up the ninth attacker four minutes later as he pulled up for his attack and Amjad also spotted him, only to lose him in the exit mode as he was perched at 10,000 feet. He was to pick him up again a minute later, descending rapidly to below 5000' when the raider was still within the radar coverage zone. The story emerged in 1972 when Amjad, the only pilot to eject from a Starfighter in two successive wars was captured and kept as a POW. His story was a complete book by itself and cleared all doubts about No 13. I commanded this Sqn, 1 Sqn AF, much later. More details to follow as references. I need to read my Sqn Diary and the ATC log again, if it still exists...this was 57 years ago. As a matter of interest, Amjad told his interlocutor, the wartime CO, and in 1972, Gp Capt OP Taneja, that he had hit the Mystere with his second Sidewinder but apparently not fatally, as this Mystere pulled up and back into him, guns blazing wildly. He was travelling too fast to avoid him and the Mystere hit the underside of his belly. He was sure he wasn't downed by gunfire, as widely reported, but by the massive inertia/ pitiful aerodynamics of the F-104 that led to the collision and had to eject. He didn't see a second parachute anywhere. Based on this evidence, OP Taneja took up this case in 1972 to recognise Devayya, but met with only apathy, till 1980, when Pop Bhasin, his close friend, became an Air Marshal. Devayya was recognised in 1988 and bestowed a Maha Vir Chakra posthumously.

Will be tough to get through, as personal experiences/original research won't count. That said, I find this section written with a pro-Pakistan bias; it indirectly reflects that shooting IAF ac down is an achievement, losing one is a tragedy. Moitraanak (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
India vs. Pakistan issues are some of the most contentious subjects we deal with on Wikipedia. Articles about Indian aircraft are generally very similar in tone, but with the opposite viewpoint, naturally. It's gets very tiresome to watch, and unfortunately, the tendency is to just laugh and ignore it. Unfortunately, most of the users who come here don't understand what is required to be neutral, and write solely from a nationalistic viewpoint. Every once in a while, we get some Indian and Pakistani editors that do understand how to write neutrally, but the last few have moved on from Wikipedia. It's practically a full-time job trying to keep these sections neutral, and Wikipedia doesn't pay us enough to make it worth the headache (as we are all unpaid volunteers!) I'd rather just remove all India vs. Pakistan combat descriptions altogether, and link to a relevant article on the war, engagement, or incident. That would at least keep the never-ending battles in one place where it's easier to keep on eye on things. BilCat (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

According to Dutch media, the front area of the train, where the hijackers were, was sprayed with bullets from the Starfighters. There are enough pictures that show the size of the bullet holes. Basvossen (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Lockheed U-2 states "Johnson's design, named CL-282, was based on the Lockheed XF-104 with long, slender wings and a shortened fuselage." I therefore think it should be listed as a related design. However, after @BilCat reverted my change, I came to discover that the XF-104 has a separate article. I would therefore like to open the discussion if the U-2 should be listed as a descendant of the F-104, the XF-104, both, or neither. Sundhaug92 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Lockheed U-2#U-2 is not based on the F-104. BilCat (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"21 USAF pilots killed using the C1 seat" is an oft-repeated fallacy.  Unfortunately, it's been printed in so many places that people accept it as fact.  It also implies that the seat is at fault, as if it were fundamentally flawed somehow, like the supersonic seat in the F-106.  Neither is likely the case.  My own research indicates a total loss of 27 C1-equipped Starfighters, 24 "A" models and 3 "B" models, between 1957-1959.  Out of that number the C1 seat was used 17 times, with 11 successful ejections and 6 unsuccessful. Dukeford (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to back up that claim? Wikipedia does not accept original research, so a reliable secondary source would be necessary to change the article. –Noha307 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)