Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/F-104 Starfighter

F-104 Starfighter[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A failed GA which I am sure can make it next time, given a fair review. I have all references available if it is pointed out where they might still be needed. Have also had my neutrality questioned recently and it may appear that I have taken 'possession' of the article due to much work done in there, not so. Would welcome some experienced input/criticism here. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see on the talk page a number of issues pertaining to the failed GA have been addressed, or claimed to have been addressed (I did not review extensively). But the referencing issue has not been. See also Red Sunset's comment at Talk:F-104_Starfighter#Improvements_before_GA_renomination -- a number of sub-sections have no referencing. Fuselage, Engine, Avionics, and Two Seat Trainer, for example. Operational history is generally well sourced but not so much the international service section. Similarly, Flying the F-104 has a few sub-sections that are sparsely cited or not cited. Like the article and love the plane -- good luck! Fletcher (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing appears to have happened with this peer review (was it opened?) as the problem seems to relate solely to referencing can I suggest that editors add cite tags where they think they need to be added to contentious issues. Nimbus (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, GA is a waste of time. Go straight to FA. The requirements are converging every day, and the people in the FA lists are much more up on their game, IMHO. Maury (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.