Talk:AFVG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article AFVG has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 15, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:AFVG/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    What page # for cite 12? I'd move Willox down to the References and adjust the cites accordingly. Consolidate cites 1 and 13. Corrected, actually only one is a quote from Willox, the other being Croup Captain Heron, cited in two instances, cite and bibliographic reference provided.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    One cite needed. Now added.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
I believe I have addressed your comments. Standing by for further instructions. Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Corrected some sections today, notably lede and BAC P.45 background. Bzuk (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Almost forgot, need the page # from Wood for the specifications.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That has now been added, with help from other editors. Kyteto (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

Why is so much information in the notes. Can't it be incorporated in the main text body instead? P. S. Burton (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Matter of choice; most of the information is extraneous and involves "asides" so that is the reason for the use of notes to explain more to the reader, yet not take away from the general narrative. FWiW, see above review. Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, two of the notes were actually created in response to a challenge regarding the BAC P.45, another was to link partners that were not involved in the final MRCA project, yet were initially considered, the other two notes were to define terminology. FWiW, other "notes" were actually re-written into the body of the text. Bzuk (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)