Talk:Curtiss XBT2C

Curtiss XBT2C 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.
Review: December 31, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal 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 is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Curtiss XBT2C/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this after Boxing Day. ♦ jaguar 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" and it made its first flight on 7 August" - I know it's 1945, but it's probably best to specify it here just in case the reader forgets through reading the whole section
"with retractable conventional landing gear although its more powerful R-3350 engine required" - missing comma?
"410 US gallons (1,600 l; 340 imp gal)s" - stray 's'

I'm going to pass this outright. I've read through the article twice and as evidenced from the lack of issues, it meets the GA criteria on all counts. It is comprehensive, well written and the sources of course all check out. The lead may appear short to some, but I believe it summarises the article fine without resorting to extending for the sake of it. I enjoyed reading this one. ♦ jaguar 13:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]