Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:11, 26 October 2011 [1].

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II[edit]

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is ready for FA status after a month-long collaborative effort in August–September. All FA criteria are met (I think), and now it's a matter of tweaking the prose. Let's get the show on the road. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sp33dyphil. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 45: are those page numbers correct?
  • Don't italicize publishers
  • Why not include both authors for Donald short citations?
  • FN 76, 106: publisher?
  • FN 115: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or spaced or neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and yes, the page numbers at FN 45 are correct -- check them out yourselves. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of a comma separator is confusing here. Usually when giving page numbers a comma is used to indicate separate page ranges. I suggest using 2127–2142 instead of 2,127–2,142. Aa77zz (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks: I have the 2nd, 7th and 10th books in the bibliography. I have checked all the references using that material and they are good. Overall the article looks clean. Trusilver 00:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does "clean" mean accurate and without close paraphrasing? - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, they look good in both respects. Trusilver 01:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review I've been around this page before. Some notes:

  • File:R11-Portavions.jpg looks like it's been through some heavy color distortion. That makes it unencyclopedic. I advise you replace or scrap the image. If you do decide to keep it, please trim the artsy border, or leave me a talk page message and I'll do it.
  • Please add an English description to File:AV-8B Harrier II Plus spanish navy (cropped).jpg. It's not a requirement, but I treat it as a strongly advised paramater, simply because by being attached to an English FA, it is going to get clicked on by quite a few English speakers eventually. Don't replace the Spanish caption, just add the English under it. ( {{en|1= text }} )
  • File:McDONNELL DOUGLAS, BAe AV-8B HARRIER II.png needs a Template:Information template.

That's all. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like Fnlayson took care of the second and third items. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not normally a reviewer of FAs, but this nomination is pretty dead, and since Sp33dyphil and I have gotten along well in the past, I figured I'd give it a kick in the rear and see what happens. Comments below. My pending support will become a normal support when point 3, the only major one, is addressed. (Please note that I have a FAC Disclaimer)
  • "with Jackie Jackson at the controls" and "BAe test pilots Hainz Frick and Steve Thomas cleared the aircraft carrier Príncipe de Asturias for Harrier operations in July 1989." - these seems like extranious details. Is Jackie Jackson important/notable? What about the other two? If not, why are these details in?
  • "In 2001, Flight International reported that Taiwan might choose to meet its requirement for STOVL aircraft by purchasing AV-8Bs, outfitted with the F-16 Fighting Falcon's APG-66 radar; this would have allowed the production line to stay open beyond 2005." - So what happened? Are they still deliberating? Did the decide on something else? Please insert a line that brings this into the present day?
  • The Design section switches tense back and forth between past and present, which isn't ideal.

Sven Manguard Wha? 07:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FA?. Not until the intro is sorted. The AV-8B is not "a family". Member of the Harrier family, but not a family itself. Nor is it "the final descendant" of the P.1127. The British Aerospace Harrier II is a later derivation of the AV-8B, as the intro of that article states. Moriori (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BAE Harrier II is a variant of the AV-8B, but it's not mention in the article 'cause it has many subvariants itself. I'll remove "final descendent", but I think it can be used because the BAE Harrier II, as I said, is simply a British version of the AV-8B. For the descendent problem, I said that the AV-8B, along with the BAE Harrier, is the final descendent of the P.1127. Thank you for your comment. Sp33dyphil © • © 08:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article looks pretty good. I don't see any showstoppers for FA. That said, there's a whole laundry list of little things that caught my eye that I think should be tweaked or tidied up before it goes to FA, so prepare for an incoming wall o' text! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "final descendant" thing - perhaps that might read better as "...the final member of the Harrier family that started with the Hawker Siddeley P.1127 in (year)"?
The final member of the Harrier family was the Harrier 11 which derived from the AV-8B. If that is not true then the intro to Harrier 11 must be corrected where it says the Harrier 11 "Derived from the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II....... " Moriori (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does need to be changed - the AV-8B and Harrier GR.5/7/9 were parrarel developments. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't make this so complicated. The point is the Harrier II is the final member of the Harrier family. "Harrier II" covers both AV-8B and GR5/7/9 versions. Wording has been adjusted thusly. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "light attack or multi-role tasks" - not a problem per se, but this looks slightly awkward. Perhaps replacing "tasks" with "missions"?
  • "referred to commonly as the "Harrier Jump Jet"" - while the page is at Harrier Jump Jet, the Harrier itself is referred to as just "Jump Jet" by most people - maybe it should be changed to read that?
  • "replaced by the under-development V/STOL Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II" - suggest changing to "replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, currently under development" - it being V/STOL would only be mentionable if it wasn't, IMHO. And we'll leave my personal opinion of Dave-B out of this. ;)
  • "named Pegasus 15" - suggest "designated Pegasus 15"
  • Suggest the first dash in the "Using knowledge gleaned..." sentence be moved to immediately after "AV-16 development" - that might make the line look better.
    • Great work here, Bushranger, and it's a huge help. I'm reading your comments (but usually not the text, yet) ... I see your point here, but WP:DASH rears its ugly head ... since there wouldn't be any commas in the sentence after your fix, DASH says to swap those two em-dashes in for commas, and various style guides agree. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "compared with conventional carrier aircraft" - suggest "compared with conventional carrier-based aircraft"
  • Sentence is "The Navy declined to participate in the procurement, citing the limited range and payload compared with conventional carrier aircraft." ... Would we lose anything important if we dropped the "compared with conventional carrier aircraft"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably would. Its range-payload is not limited when compared to other STOVL aircraft. "Carrier" can be removed though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Works for me to remove "carrier". - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought: perhaps there should be a mention somewhere as to why the AV-8C designation came "before" the AV-8B?
  • Very peculiar; sorry, there's no explanation as to why this is the case, so I might have to leave it at that, or else people will think I introduce original research into articles. Sp33dyphil © • © 02:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leading edge root extensions" - suggest adding "wing" immediately before this.
  • "and 2 twin-seat TAV-8B aircraft" - should the number be spelled out?
  • "the UK also participated in the program" - how?
  • "Authorization for production occured" - perhaps "was given" would work better than "occured"?
  • "remanufacture...to the latest standards" - might be better if it said "to the Plus standard"?
  • "while manufacture of new Harriers" - suggest "new-build"
    • "New-build" feels slightly jargony to me, but I'm having trouble coming up with something I like better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but "new-built/d" is a clear, and concise way of saying it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "smaller valve-controlled nozzles..." - perhaps it should be mentioned that they use bleed air? Also suggest linking to reaction control system.
  • comparison of armaments between the AV-8B and the BAe Harrier II - didn't the British aircraft use the 30mm ADEN cannon? Might be worth mentioning as an additional difference.
  • "increasing lift-to-drag ratio" - perhaps should include "the wing's"
  • "used in concert with..." LERX is linked and defined for the second time in the article here - is that necessary?
  • The start of the sentence talks already talks about the wing. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allows a 6,700 pound..." this is slightly awkward to my eye; perhaps "allows for a..."? Also, allows a 6,700 pound increase in payload etc. as compared to what? Presumably the original AV-8A, but this probably should be clarified.
  • "is the first combat aircraft to employ..." maybe this should be "was" now, since there are others I presume by this point?
  • "reducing the weight of the aircraft by 480 lb..." compared to? might want to add "compared to a conventional metal structure"
  • Yes, it is compared to metal structure. But this should be clearly implied given the preceding sentences about composites. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a little obscure, but most style guides prefer "compared with", unless you're favorably comparing just one aspect. Garner's gives something like: "He compared her eyes to limpid pools." - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and have a revised inlet" - would "a revised inlet lip" work, or was it more fundamental to the whole inlet?
  • I think "inlet" here refers to the lip. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? Although I don't know what a potential article would look like because of the lack of coverage. It's probably another jargon that our American friends like to throw around. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over the original Harrier" - perhaps "compared to the..."?
  • "The technological advances incorporated into the Harrier II, over the original Harrier, significantly reduce the workload on the pilot.": If it's easier to fly, I think "technological advances" can be assumed, so maybe: "The Harrier II is significantly less demanding to fly than the Harrier." - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC) (P.S. I could be wrong here, depending on what you want to emphasize ... now that I read the text, you could probably combine this sentence with the next.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tech advances have been more about making it easier on the pilot to strike a target. The main Harrier versions have a crew of one. Trainer versions are the only 2-crew versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "positive circulation flaps" - what is positively circulating?
  • I don't remember adding that, so I'll remove it. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the line about ejection seats doesn't use its plurals consistently
  • "the tandem two-seat TAV-8B" - slightly awkward to my eye, perhaps "the TAV-8B, seating two pilots in tandem"?
  • "with the remainder being withdrawn from service" - would it be possible to say how many were?
  • "OPEVAL tests identified a number of shortfalls in the design, many of which had since been rectified" - slightly unclear here, had they been rectified in aircraft already being built as OPEVAL was undergoing?
  • The book says that problems were encountered were solved, but it didn't explicitly say that aircraft being built concurrently with OPEVAL were modified. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the 1999 Operation Allied Force during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia" - suggest "in 1999, during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in Operation Allied Force"
  • "operating from the unit's ships off the coast" - well, I'd hope they weren't grounded. ;) Seriously though, "off the coast" was just used in the previous sentence, is it needed here too?
  • Hehehe, removed "off the coast of Pakistan". Thanks for that. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line about calls for AC-130s is slightly abrupt, seeing as up till now the Marines have been singing the Harrier's praises. Perhaps add "Despite the Harrier's high marks," just before "the limited amount of time"?
  • "in support of the on-going Operation Odyssey Dawn" - suggest removing "on-going", it's not especially relevant and will avoid the article's becoming dated later.
  • "The carrier, which replaces the..." suggest "replaced the World War II-era..."
  • "The unit originally planned to operate the aircraft first was..." - suggest "It was originally planned that the first unit to operate the aircraft would be..."
  • "following the sales of..." - suggest "following the sale of the..."
  • Tripartie MoU - who were the three parties? Why did they need a MoU? Perhaps this should be redlinked or linked to a stub article (if you have time to whip one up, no worries if not)?
  • "bring them up to the latest standard" - Plus standard?
  • "following a demonstration on the..." - A demonstration by what type of Harrier variant? Kestrel? GR.3?
  • "Soon a contract for a further sixteen...was signed" suggest ", with a contract for a further 16...being issued shortly thereafter."
  • "on the Guiseppi Garibaldi" - suggest the "carrier" clarification from the next paragraph be moved to here - perhaps link to light aircraft carrier?
  • I don't get what your first point it, maybe you should perform the change to the article for me to see if it works out.
  • "the Cavour", "operating from the Garibaldi" - this might just be personal preference, but IIRC as a rule putting "the" before ship names is discouraged.
  • Sorry, I don't think it sounds really good and is grammatically correct, but if you want to change it, it's up to you :) Sp33dyphil © • © 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including by Arnold..." - perhaps "including one flown by..." would be better?
  • Should the original Harrier family be linked in "related development"?
  • Yes it should; added.
Support - lookin' good to me! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't normally participate in FAC, but I've spent a good portion of the last couple weeks checking the print references on this article. Between the books I own and the ones that I have found at the library, I am confident that the article is accurate. Overall, I am satisfied that it has met FAC criteria. Trusilver 03:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But still have a few comments, all minor:
    • Introduce the abbreviations RAF and USMC when they first appear in the Origins paragraph
    • Why do you say "Pegasus engine" instead of "Rolls-Royce Pegasus"? As it is called/linked in the Design section?
    • Link A-4 Skyhawk
    • Link the Harrier here too, instead of way, way down in "design"
    • You introduce the abbreviation DoD on the second use of Department of Defense. Should be the first time.
    • Meanwhile, 75% work-share for the engine went to Rolls-Royce, which had absorbed Bristol Siddeley, with the rest taken up by Pratt & Whitney The rest of the work-share, or Bristol-Siddeley?
    • Who are MDD?
    • Why do we have For Royal Air Force and Royal Navy operations, see British Aerospace Harrier II ? Couldn't we have a summary here? (Might as well take it all, as it is only one paragraph worth anyway.)
    • Why isn't Lieutenant General Earl B. Hailston linked? Could it have something to do with his name being misspelled?
    • Who is James Amosfor? Don't you mean General James F. Amos?

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your reviews; all points have been addressed except for the third-last comment -- the summary of British operations is beyond the scope of this article, and I think it's unnecessary to summarise RAF and RN operations. In that case, would you like me to remove the banner then? Sp33dyphil © • © 03:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says the plane is taking place in the "ongoing" Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, but according to that article Odyssey Dawn refers only to the operations before NATO took command on March 31. Ucucha (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have minimal familiarity with aerospace engineering, so my questions are likely to be less technical. I'll be adding my thoughts/questions one at a time.--~TPW 20:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins, third paragraph: footnote 7 is cited twice in one sentence. Is that really necessary?
  • Same paragraph: is the note about the McDonnell-Douglas project being expensive relevant? If so, could you lay out why?
  • Designing and testing: first paragraph, the sentence "The USMC planned to order 336 aircraft at this time." Should be "that time" to agree with tense. (Sidenote: I didn't make this rather minor change because I don't know if it's appropriate to edit and review an article, but it would have taken me less time to change it than write this.)
  • Overview: " The Harrier II was the first combat aircraft to employ composite materials extensively; they are used on the wings, rudder, flaps, nose, forward fuselage and empennage." Does one of the print sources support the assertion that this was the first combat aircraft to use composites this extensively? This seems like a good place for a footnote.
  • Best use of an "in popular culture" section I've ever seen.
  • The use of acronyms did not overwhelm me as I expected it to. Well done.
  • That is all I see. It's an informative article that doesn't leave me in the dust.--~TPW 21:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vertical/short": technically, a WP:SLASH violation, but I think the ubiquitous slash in the acronym makes it okay.
  • "After mergers in the 1990s, Boeing and BAE Systems have jointly supported the program.": If they're both still supporting the program, and you expect they will for several more years at least, then change "After" to "Since". Otherwise, remove "have".
  • After looking at the comments below and seeing the back-and-forth in the edit history, there's too much to do here, sorry. I'll take another look at aviation articles in general in December, when I've got more time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Phil, I'm sorry about the apparent confusion, I've only responded to Bushranger's points above, and I've copyedited the lead and part of the first subsection. There's too much to do here and I'm not going to have much time to spare until December. If it helps ... ship articles, which are similar in some ways, had problems at FAC for a long time before the copyeditors and writers were able to exhange enough information to comply with FAC standards ... and now, with a little help, ship articles sail through FAC (haha). We'll get there eventually with aviation articles. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went to random spotcheck one paragraph in the middle of the article (Operational history), and found the usual prose concerns (I do wish the aircraft folk would get some collaborative copyeditors on board who aren't familiar with aircraft lingo/jargon). Some of this may be the result of my lack of MilHist knowledge, but then, that would be true of general readers as well:

  1. "To prepare for USMC service, the AV-8B underwent rigorous evaluations. ... " Don't all aircraft preparing for military service undergo "rigorous" evaluations? Does the source say these evaluations were particularly rigourous, more so than other aircraft? If so, why? If not, why is that word included?
    The article doesn't say that other aircraft underwent less rigorous testing. Sp33dyphil © • © 02:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. " ... put the aircraft under conditions ..." Colloquial?
    Do you have a better suggestion? Please don't just point out problems, but be specific and come up with suggestions at the same time. (I hope everyone is like The Bushranger) Sp33dyphil © • © 02:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. " ... fly close and deep air support missions in concert with other close air support aircraft, battlefield interdiction, and armed reconnaissance missions." I don't know what it means to "fly air support missions in concern with battlefield interdiction and reconnaissance missions" ... those seem to be very different things mixed in one sentence ... perhaps this is my lack of milhist knowledge, but I don't know what this sentence is trying to say.
    <sigh> I don't know how to make that much clearer, please take it literally. "fly close and deep air support missions in concert with other close air support aircraft" means that the aircraft supports ground troops, whethere it be close or deep in enemy-controlled territory, with other similar troop-support aircraft. "Battlefield interdiction" means the aircraft destroys enemy installations and support convoys. I've wikified "Battlefield interdiction". Sp33dyphil © • © 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the extra wikilink added by Phil, I've added ", as well as flying" (and removed a comma later in the sentence) to further clarify this. I'm not convinced this is actually necessary or an improvement, but if the sentence is (apparently) incomprehensible in its existing form then I suppose it's needed. Close air support and reconnaissance were already wikilinked earlier in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. " ... Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and NAS China Lake ... NAS, undefined acronym, requiring reader to click on link ALso, CFB and MCAS, please check acronyms throughout the article.
    Hmm, would you tell every American ship article to define "USS"? "NAS China Lake" is what people call it, so why should we introduce the full name? Sp33dyphil © • © 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. " .. required the AV-8B to provide fighter escort, combat air patrol, and deck-launched intercept missions ... " Another example of what looks like mixed tenses, or else I can't figure out what it's trying to say. How does one "provide" those three?
    <sigh>The AV-8B can provide "fighter escort" by escorting bombers and other aircraft, "combat air patrol" by partrolling an airspace armed, and "deck-launched intercept missions" means it can be launched from ships to intercept enemy fighters or bombers. Seriously, I think this is becoming Simple Wikipedia. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "OPEVAL tests identified a number of shortfalls in the design, many of which had since been rectified ... " problem in tense ?
    Why's there question mark? Please be decisive about your points, because you might be shedding unfounded negative lights on the article. I believe everything's in the past tense. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "OPEVAL was deemed a major success" ... groan. "Major success"? As opposed to a minor success, or what? Redundant, redundant, redundant.
    Done. And please be concise, and don't clog up the page eg "Redundant, redundant, redundant." Sp33dyphil © • © 02:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, OK, OK (that was a major mistake). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An independent (non-Milhist) set of eyes would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • After reading your comments, it is apparent that you don't have a large MilHist knowledge base -- how come four other people understood what is being said while you don't? Sp33dyphil © • © 23:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will unavoidably be jargon - that's the nature of the beast. We're supposed to assume competence and assume clue in our editors; the same should go for our readers. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, nor should it be. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's not be determined to assume too much. I'm quite happy to assume that the ordinary educated reader will realise that "NAS China Lake" is the name of a base or facility, and will be happy to click the link if they want to know more about the precise nature of the facility - since using the full name instead of the acronym (which I assume is what's meant by "defining the acronym") doesn't actually leave the reader any better informed anyway. However, it now occurs to me that since there's no good reason not to use the name in full instead of the acronym, why not do so? (And Fnlayson has already done so.) Equally, combat air patrol should have been wikilinked (and I just have), since it's a specific type of mission whose nature is far from obvious to the layman (it does not involve flying around carrying bombs and then dropping them on targets that are encountered while patrolling). There may be others of these concerns that are equally valid, and the rest need discussion or explanation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sandy's concerns about prose quality which I share. --John (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you understand some of the words in the article? Sp33dyphil © • © 23:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, I understand all the words in the article. I also think it is unfortunately not written to FA standard, hence my oppose above. --John (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is not the words; it's the grammar. (Those were samples only.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one point above is about grammar -- everything is ragarding the jargon that is unavoidable with every military aircraft article. I used to not understand what "slats", "flaps" and "auxilliary power units" were, but why does the development of an article have to be disrupted by a person who has no understanding in military aviation at all? I understand that everyone is not the same, but it is assumed that they have a basic understanding of some of the basic terms (I did really hard to translate the aviation jargon so everyone can understand, but if I do it more, the article would be full of explanations) in use. Plus, Demiurge1000 (who does know a bit of copy-editing), Dank, The Bushranger has gone through the article, and has not raised any of the points above. Now please tell me (@SandyGeorgia), why should I open my ears to some of your comments that 1) you're not even sure are correct, and that 2) are vague eg. '"OPEVAL tests identified a number of shortfalls in the design, many of which had since been rectified ... " problem in tense ?' Specifically point out the mistake, because I, Dank and Demiurge1000 do not want to be looking for something that is potentially non-existent. Also below you seem to think that WP:SEEALSO says any links must have refs -- may I ask where's that link? Thank you. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, almost every point is about grammar and mixing tenses-- the exception is the lack of defined acronyms, and Dank acknowledged there was too much work for him to get to. The discussion of the clear breach of WP:ALSO is at the talk page of the Aviation Wikiproject. This has long been a problem with aviation articles, so I'll move to oppose now, since See also should be minimized in Featured articles, although there are sometimes lengthy in undeveloped articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


See also needs attention to either original research or citations needed.

Related development

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era

Related lists

If those are "similar aircraft", where is the citation, the discussion in text, and similar based on what? Both Wikipedia's style guide, and the Aviation WikiProject style guide, encourage the incorporation of See also into the article text; in this case, we have a claim that certain aircraft are "similar" that is covered nowhere in the text, might be irrelevant, is certainly uncited, and may be inaccurate. It's not clear why this is included, and whether that info is even necessary or useful in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That particular template is standard for every WP:AIR article that includes a "See Also" section - Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#See also explicitly reccomends the use of it.. And it's not supposed to be referenced, nor have the aircraft listed discussed in the text. It's not, technically, part of the article, rather, more like a "for similar aircraft, see..." section at the end of a regular encyclopedia article. See, for instance, Boeing 747#See also, McDonnell XF-85 Goblin#See also, Northrop YF-23#See also - all FAs, two very recently passed, not a peep about "See also" - you didn't have an issue with the "See Also" section in the YF-23 article when you reviewed it at the end of August. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: we don't require citations in navboxes, do we? Or for categories? The "See Also" section is the same type of reader aid. (And, as Phil points out above, WP:SEEALSO says "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." - not that it has to be stated in the text or referenced). - The Bushranger One ping only 04:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am puzzled by the "see also concerns laid out, so I'm pasting directly from WP:SEEALSO to make sure we're on the same page:

Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section . . ."

I think it's clear that anything listed in the "see also" section should specifically not be linked in the text. On the other hand, maybe it's not unreasonable to provide a brief annotation on some of these per the MOS quoted above. And if everything in the section "would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article," then maybe this section in general shouldn't be very long in a featured article. I'm deriving that view solely from the MOS, and I don't have any opinion either way.--~TPW 11:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the prose itself, my entire professional life is stripping out jargon and acronyms, or making same understandable to non-specialists. My military history background is comprised of what my Air Force father mentioned in passing when I was a kid - more than nothing, but just barely. I thought the use and explanation of acronyms and terminology was as easy to follow as can be expected, and I commend a job well done.--~TPW 11:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2:

  • ^ Aviation author Norman Polmar claimed the IOC of the AV-8B to be January 1985.[74]

Why "claimed" (why not "stated" or "said")? See WP:CLAIM; it's right to note this, but shouldn't doubts about Polmar's credibility be left to the reader? Or can we inform the reader, based on the source, why Polmar and Nordeen disagree on the date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good point. I'll change that to a more neutral wording; Phil can, of course, revert or change as he sees fit. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's better, but it's still unclear why our article gives preference to one account over the other, or what may have led to the discrepecancy. Why do we cite one author and footnote the other? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd presume it's because the majority of sources give the date given in the main article (with just one selected to be featured as the given source), with Polmar being a notable dissenting opinion. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is that the answer (you state it as a presumption, so it's unclear to me if SpeedyPhil has done the research). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recuse, per unresolved prose issues and general copyedit needs (grammar, not vocabulary, which is not at all hard to follow but which doesn't mean we don't define acronyms for laypersons) and breach of WP:ALSO (see ongoing discussion at Aviation WikiProject talk page; [2] what may be included "See also" in undeveloped articles is not appropriate, in this case, for a Featured Article.] Besides that Wikipedia's guidelines discourge this kind of linking in "See also", the Aviation takes it a step further, by making a "claim" in the See also section ("Comparable aircraft"), without informing readers why the aircraft are comparable or discussing this in the text (if this "comparable" issue is worth mentioning, for the article to be comprehensive, it should be in text, and cited-- instead, we leave the reader guessing. For the purpose of grouping like articles, we have navboxes and categories-- in Aviation articles, instead, we have original research, and opinion. This may work for undeveloped articles, but an FA should explain why these aircraft are comparable, cited the text, and make the article comprehesive, or leave it out of See also altogether. Is the article comprehensive or isn't it? Do FAs have to meet crit. 2 or don't they? We have a Wiki-wide guideline about See also, and while a good deal of MOS is trivial and doesn't affect readers, this particular breach of MOS does misguide and affect readers-- it's not just a misplaced dash or space, it's content-related (see discussion and examples on Aviation Project), and has no place in an FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you had no problem with the YF-23 article's "See Also" section when you commented on its FAC two months ago. Why is there a problem now? And why are you arguing against the Manual of Style (WP:SEEALSO)? Quoting: whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation Project has long breached MOS-- it's always been a problem, and y'all even acknowledge it at the talk page discussion-- that you've decided not to address it even after acknowledging it is a new problem. As to common sense, common sense tells me we don't send readers of an FA on wild goose chases, trying to guess why the aircraft are "comparable". IF they are, and it's worth mentioning, add it to the text and cite it-- tell us why they're comparable. And please engage some independent copyeditors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that, of the 3,776,525 articles on Wikipedia, I have yet to see any with references in their "See also" section, including a quick scan of FAs from the well-run MILHIST project, singling out the aircraft project seems a little odd. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(also, I notice you didn't answer my question. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
What is odd is that you don't see the difference between most article's "See also" sections, and Aviation articles "See also" sections. Aviation makes a claim (that aircraft are comparable). One that is unclear and unjustified to the reader, inclusion criteria are not explained, and it is not sourced to anything-- in other words, it's original research. For that purpose, y'all should be using navboxes or categories. What else would you like answered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. From WP:AIRMOS. Inclusion criteria, clearly explained. And you still haven't answered the question: why was See Also not a problem in your review of the YF-23 FAC, but is a problem now, two months later? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you want our readers to know how to search out an obscure guideline to understand why some Wikipedia editor considers (original research, uncited, author opinion, as seen by the numerous links you had to delete from the Zero article) one aircraft comparable to another? Aviation breaches of MOS have always been a problem-- the Zero article problems just made it even more clear that this is not a good practice-- and most certainly not in an FA. In an FA, if an article makes a claim that aircraft are of a similar role, era, and capability, and that is worth mentioning, it should be in text and cited. Otherwise, it's editor opinion, subject to the numerous differences and edit wars and cruft that is already discussed at the Aviation Project talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume clue on the part of our readers, and therefore that they'll use their own common sense to know that a 'comparable aircraft' means 'comparable in mission and era'. Requiring referencing won't stop the fanboys and vandals. And since it's obvious neither of us is going to convince the other of our position, that's all I have to say here. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just realized this was an article I GA reviewed! I was happy with it, and I'm happy to support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II/archive1&oldid=1089641434"