Talk:Hawker Siddeley P.1127/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "Pegasus vectored thrust engine" I hyphenate "vectored thrust" since the two are adjectives. Same with "closely based" Please check throughout article.
  • "Testing began in July 1960, which included achieving vertical take off and vertical flight that same year." Rephrase? I suggest "Testing began in July 1960, and by year's end, vertical take off and vertical flight had been achieved."
  • "The Kestrel which was" missing comma after Kestrel.
  • Why italicise "Tri-partite Evaluation Squadron"?
  • "Later flights were conducted at the Edwards Air Force Base and by NASA" Edwards AFB isn't an org., so remove "and".
  • Why isn't the United States Department of Defense spelled out in full in infobox. Why do NASA and DoD share a slash?
  • Is there a possibility you could expand the third para., incorporating the information from "P.1127 (RAF)"?
Background
  • "named as the Pegasus" remove "as the" and italicise "Pegasus".
  • "A considerable amount of adaptions and enhancements were made by Bristol to reduce size and weight over Wibault's original concept." Rephrase as to remove passive voice.
  • "Prior to working on the P.1127" shorten to "Prior to the P.1127"
  • "reaction control system, this was" replace comma with semi colon or dash.
  • "the USA." I'd normally use "US".
  • What's "nodel testing"? typo? Rephrase that sentence to remove passive voice.
P.1127
  • "The two aircraft proceeded to "close the gap" " What's the need for inverted commas?
  • "serial XP831 was" missing comma after figure.
  • "first three P.1127" missing s.
Kestrel FGA.1
  • Why wikify "Britain, the US and West Germany."? No need, I'd think. If not, please wikify earlier mentioning
  • " three allocated to US" missing the before "US".
  • "During testing one aircraft was lost; and evaluations finalised in November 1965." Two different clauses. Split them into two sentences.
  • "the Service life of these" service is a common noun, isn't it?
  • "suction relief doors" what are they?
Something to do with changing/limiting engine airflow, which inconvinently changes in relation to the velocity of the aircraft, is my guess/interpretation. I honestly don't know, and can't find any reasonable elaboration/explaination of the suction relief doors, only that they were a thing on the aircraft that was changed due to experience, and the reason why it was changed. Kyteto (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suction relief doors are the row of square-shaped openings seen around the engine intakes when the Harrier is hovering or on the ground. They open to allow more air into the engine than would be possible at low flying speeds through the intake mouths alone. The doors are very lightly spring-loaded and when the suction of the engine at low aircraft speeds becomes greater than the intakes can handle, the doors open allowing more air through. They are effectively 'sucked' open. Hence the name. Once the aircraft reaches a sufficient forward speed the ram air effect pushes them closed.
Put simply, they just allow an intake designed for high aircraft speed to also operate fairly efficiently at low speed, i.e., in the hover. This was the original reason for the later-discarded inflatable intake mouths, to allow the intake shape to be dynamically varied to suit low/high speed flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.1127 (RAF)
  • "an aircraft like the F-4 Phantom along with the VTOL capability." replace "like" with "such as". missing "II" after "Phantom". remove "the" before "VTOL".
  • "a supersonic P.1127 and the P.1154 which would meet NBMR-3" missing comma after "P.1127" and "P.1154". Is "which would meet NBMR-3" necessary?
The mention allows for the inclusion the requirement ID number, which might be valid/of interest to somebody to follow up on what that requirement was, rather than vaguely referring to it as the "NATO VTOL Requirement". Kyteto (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the result of the French government withdrawing shortly" I suggest "the result of the withdrawal of the French government shortly". It rids of the noun –ing construction. See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing.
  • "In late 1965, six pre-production P.1127 (RAF) aircraft were ordered by the RAF." rephrase to "In late 1965, the RAF ordered six pre-production P.1127 (RAF) aircraft" to rid passive voice.
  • " The first pre-production aircraft" change to "the first of these"
  • "in early 1967; at the which" I think a comma is the correct punctuation.
Variants and Operators
  • Why placed "Harrier GR1" in bold face?
  • Alphabetically, West Germany comes after the UK and US.
Images, links and miscellany
  • Please add alt text.
  • One dead link according to [1].
  • Access date for ref 38?
  • Please add {{Portal box|Royal Air Force|Aviation}} to "See also"
  • how come "Mason 1971" is linked while the others are not?
Corrected to match.
I have done my best to impliment all suggestions. I do not see any remaining unaddressed now. Kyteto (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Assessment[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
End note

Very, very happy with the article. I'd dearly love this to be promoted to FA status. Very worthy. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

t is my aim to place the 'main' article for the Harrier, the Hawker Siddeley Harrier through a FAC one day, although most WP:Aircraft editors don't manage to successfully achieve a single FA-level article, I feel it is worth the effort to try on that occasion. Hopefully editors like you shall be there to support me on putting the icon of aviation smarts onto the top. Kyteto (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hawker_Siddeley_P.1127/GA1&oldid=941063910"