# Talk:Operation Shed Light

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
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): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
You've got a fairly good article here. It's well-cited, extremely comprehensive, and was understandable even to myself, someone relatively unfamiliar with the details of the project. That being said, I do have a few suggestions before signing off:

The lead paragraph needs to follow WP:Lead and put the bolded term in the first one or two sentences. I'd suggest a thorough rewrite of the entire lead, as it doesn't adequately cover the end results of the project, the problems encountered during the course of the development, or define who the "enemy" is. With such a specialized subject, don't be afraid to go two paragraphs in the lead section. The article is long enough to warrant it.
There are a few was/were conflicts, and the article doesn't always stick to the past tense. I'd also suggest a thorough copyedit for comma usage as well.
The Origin section says that the project searched for "interim" solutions. If this is the case, what was planned as a long-term solution to the problem?
The numbered list in the Origins section is a bit awkward. Try rephrasing it or putting it into a block quote to distinguish it from the body text of the section.
The Vietnam War link box appears twice in the article.
More wikilinks are needed -- things like Greeneville, Texas, and any unusual terms need to be linked. If something like "Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development" doesn't have an article, try directing it to the Chief of Staff or the Research and Development department.
All in all, the article is almost there. The biggest things are the copyediting and reworking the lead section. JKBrooks85 18:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

BELIEVE THE LIE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.45.201 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Operation Shed Light/CommentsTalk:Operation Shed Light/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 01:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article say the USAF had 'no attack aircraft' when they had the B-57, B-66, B-45, T-28, F-105, F-100, even the A-26? The difference between strike and attack is subtle; they weren't stuck with air superiority fighters and strategic bombers only. 
Now, even granting their strike planes were mostly geared towards nuclear strike, not low level tactical support, why does this article totally ignore the F-105? Out of the F-100, F-104 and F-4 it is the only one designed as a bomber, not a air-to-air fighter. Surely this is relevant? And what is all this about the F-104 being "used for bombing missions" in Vietnam and "designed as a nuclear strike aircraft"? The F-104 flew uneventful air patrols and escort missions for the Constellations on AWACS. They were given a wishful ABILITY to carry a nuclear weapon, but this was not their intended purpose until Lockheed sold the F-104G to the Luftwaffe. Even then it was designed as a interceptor.
70.16.214.204 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)