# Talk:Bravo November

I would suggest that this article should be renamed Boeing Chinook ZA718 in line with other individual RAF aircraft articles. ZA718 was only BN during the 1980s certainly in recent years it has operated as EQ and was certainly not painted as BN for the recent DFCs. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason that this is a separate article and not just a section within Boeing Chinook (UK variants)? - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that, unlike "other" individual RAF aircraft this particular one has such a rich history that it warrants its own page. No other Chinook that I am aware of has quite the following that this particular one has. There have been at least two documentaries made about her (one radio Radio 4, Its My Story, one TV) as well as numerous mainstream press articles, not to mention the dozens of web articles an tribute sites.
In addition I think that the name "Bravo November" is an appropriate article name as it is the name by which this particular aircraft is known. They even have a replica honouring it at the RAF Museum. The exhibit was opened by retired Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Johns on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war. He said that "Bravo November is a hugely significant aeroplane to the RAF... The RAF almost never singles out individual aircraft for tribute. But Bravo November is exceptional."Mail Online 18th July 2009
The RAF themselves refer to her as "Bravo November" and state that she is "the RAF's Most Famous Chinook"RAF Museum - Bravo November - the RAF's Most Famous Chinook Builark 00:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Concur with the rename, as "Bravo November" is ambiguous. Also, ACM Sir Johns also called the helicopter an "aeroplane", but that does not make it one! - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case then please tell me why the following aircraft are not also "ambiguous" - N269VA - 41-24301 - N-X-211 - B-29-36-MO 44-27297 - NX37602 - B-17F-10-BO, 41-24485 - B-29-45-MO, 44-86292. It would seem from these examples that there is a precedent already set for naming articles about famous aircraft after their "nickname" or colloquial/common name. To quote the RAF themselves "The most famous of the RAF's Chinook helicopters is ZA718, known more usually (emphasis mine) by its two-letter identity code - 'Bravo November'."RAF Museum - Bravo November If the article must be renamed then might I suggest Bravo November (ZA718) might be an alternative. Builark 11:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said it was the only ambiguous title, as you well know. The examples you give are actual names in five case, not code words that can have other uses. Two of the articles are named for their manufacturer and aircraft type name, as per the WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. (Hughes H-4 Hercules, not Spruce Goose. Most of the others are named per the conventions too. - BilCat (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
My point being that all these aircraft are known by their "name" rather than their ID or registrastion mark, some of which are no more than "nicknames". True, "Bravo November" is the radio alphabet code for the "BN" part of the original registration ZA718/BN, however, when the pilots, fans and even the RAF refer to her as just "Bravo November", when the exhibit at the RAF museum is caled "Bravo November" I would suggest it has become more  than just a "code word", it has, it fact, become that particular aircrafts given name. As I said before If the article must be renamed then might I suggest Bravo November (ZA718) might be an alternative. Builark 13:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor point Bravo November is not a callsign or part of a registration/serial number it was just a squadron code allocated to ZA418, which can change when the aircraft changes squadron. Which is why it is now "Echo Quebec" ! MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Which really proves the point, as this aircraft is still known as "Bravo November" by the RAF. Builark 14:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bravo November/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The article is well written, although the lead section could do with being expanded slightly so as to summarise some more of the article. I recommend a copyedit just to have a fresh pair of eyes taking a look at the wording.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References are used sufficiently and back up key facts.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
If some additional information on the construction is available, this would help to bulk out the 'Construction and callsign' section somewhat. The article covers the subject well.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The subject is covered neutrally.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
The article has not changed radically over the past couple of weeks.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The sole image in the article is freely licensed and includes a suitably concise caption.
Overall: The article accurately covers the history of the aircraft and is well written. I am placing this review on hold until the additions are made. As this is my first Good Article review, I will be seeking a second opinion to check I'm doing things properly. Harrison49 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Just to make sure the article is the best it can be, I would recommend a copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors. I know from personal experience they do a fantastic job. Harrison49 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Pass/Fail:  Passed - Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following text from the page as I cannot find a citation for it and the text was slightly confused. None of the references discuss using a replacement door off any Argentine aircraft.
"Shortly after landing the Argentinian ground crew saw that Bravo November had no co-pilot door. The ground crew admired Bravo November as they had known Bravo November was the sole survivor of the Atlantic Conveyor incident; they respected the British Chinook's ability to continue even without the correct equipment and ground crew. The Royal Air Force ground crew took off the co-pilot door of the Argentinian Chinook and screwed it onto the British Chinook. Bravo November carries the Argentinian door to this day. "
If anyone can find a suitably reliable source then please feel free to add it back. Please make sure to clarify though which ground crew fitted it though. Thanks, Woody (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bravo November. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206211126/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/exhibitions/chinook/bravo_november.cfm to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/exhibitions/chinook/bravo_november.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)