This 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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article says "Powerplant: 4 × General Electric F118-GE-100 non-afterburning turbofans, 17,300 lbf (77 kN) thrust each", and links to the General Electric F118 article. So there is a whole article about the engines. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, I can see the reference to powerplant now and I can also see how I missed it in the Specification section. I expected to find some mention of them in the Sesign section and visually scanned that section (on the mobile view), found nothing and then searched the article for the word ‘engine’, again finding nothing. It does feel like something of an omission and maybe some more obvious mention could be made? Gsoper (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fnlayson, I saw you reverted my edit. Can you explain what you mean by "more formal wording"? Crash is a perfectly acceptable term for the incidents contained in the section, and probably the more correct one. Please see the MOS discussion and recent writing on the use of the word "crash" vs "accident." Unless a source in the article is directly using the word "accident" we should be using the word "crash" with rare exceptions.
My apologies for bringing this to your talk page instead of here initially. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Aircraft project guidelines (WP:Air/PC) lists a section label of "Accidents and incidents" (or just Accidents) for aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll open a discussion there. Hopeful to hear your input. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the specifications section, it is listed as being capable of officially 18,000kg payload and estimated 23,000 kg max payload. Simultaneously, it is said to be capable of carrying 2 GBU 57s, each being 14,000 Kg. I dont know if this would be OR or can fall under WP:SKYBLUE, but atleast one of those figures needs correction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the article "Northrop B-2 Spirit"[edit]
From what I've observed, aircraft article names generally use the prime contractor at the time of design/production, designation, and sometimes the official name. The principle B-2 team consisted of Northrop, Boeing, Hughes, and Vought, and the aircraft was built from 1987 to 2000. While Northrop Grumman was formed in 1994 following Northrop's acquisition of Grumman, the bulk of the design work and the first few aircraft were built before the acquisition occurred. Wouldn't it make sense for Northrop to be in the article title instead of Northrop Grumman? See General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, another aircraft where production transferred from GD to Lockheed in 1993, but the article title still reflects the original designer. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
