Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Air Force One/archive1

Self-nomination. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:27, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Support. Interesting and well-written. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:33, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Support - a good article, my previous objection being mostly dealt with. I wouldn't mind some comparison with what other nations do, but I'll still support. Jongarrettuk 18:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)Oppose. I wasn't really sure whether the reference to the 'two Boeing 707-320B-type aircraft ? tail numbers 26000 and 27000 ? had operated as Air Force One starting in 1962' was meant to imply that Air Force One started in 1962 with these planes, or whether the date Air Force One began wasn't stated in the article. Also, it could be compared with what happens in other countries - are Presidential planes unusual, or relatively common? By the way, I'm not looking for much, just a couple of extra sentences. Jongarrettuk 18:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]

not an objection, but maybe mention presidential planes before the call sign was invented? --Jia ng 04:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]

Support, very interesting and informative article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - I think Eisenhower used a Loockeed Constellation. This should be complete to be featured IMO. Ericd 21:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]

- Eisenhower???? This article doesn't recognise anything before 1962! If Air Force One existed before then, then the article should cover that period (it should at least say when it started). Jongarrettuk 21:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]

Support. I voted before--I asked for a bibliography, which has now been done--but as I find no trace of my vote on this page's history or my own contribution page I can only conclude the computer swallowed it completely. So I'm voting again on a good concise fact-filled article. Kudos, Neutrality. PedanticallySpeaking 18:14, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. ~~1) It's quite short, I would have liked it to be longer. 2) The history section could be more kept together, and less like "In 1997 this happened. In 1998 this happened." (You know).~~ 3) There is a comparison which tells me nothing: "150-ton 747 was an 85,000-pound Gulfstream V corporate jet"; we could use unit conversion here. 4) There is no mention of the movie with the same name in the article, and nothing about possible other appearances in film (Independence Day, perhaps). 5) "Tom Harris" could need a (short) presentation, is he a military guy, journalist or fiction writer? 6) Other questions: How often does the plane fly, and how much time does the president spend on the plane? I guess the plane is often, if not always escorted. By what? What is the number of security, staff and total people it usually carries? ✏ Sverdrup 19:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support. Good article Cyopardi 21:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found one occurence of bad grammar, but I'll fix that ASAP. I read the article last night and I found it quite informative and complete. Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Support --ZZ 08:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support. Brilliant article, excellent work Cyopardi 22:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support, but could you add something about the September 12, 2001 announcement that the White House had "specific and credible information" that AF1 was one of the "intended targets of these attacks"? (The interviewer asked Ari Fleischer "So then why did the President go to Nebraska and not back here to the White House?", an apparent embarrasment, and Fleischer answered "Because the information that we had was real and credible about Air Force One.") According to the 9/11 Commission Report (p.554), the White House says that this was false, and that it originated with a simple mistake by the watch officer in the White House Situation Room (although the director of the situation room says this is not true.) It seems notable to me that AF1 was allegedly under attack, even if this turns out not to be true.