Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-35 Lightning II/archive1
Quite a while ago I posted on the F-35 talk page that it isn't FAC quality (see this). I posted the following reasons: "In the first place, the references are inadequate - there were several fact tags before I came along & I've now added further ref tags for 2 sections that lack references. Furthermore, there is at least one direct external link used as a ref (instead of a footnote). Secondly, at least two sections/sub-sections are very short stubs, I've added stubsection tags to them." Four editors responded that they agree with my assessment but, unfortunately, the problems have not yet been fixed. Mikker (...) 18:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This is two FAR notifications for User:PopUpPirate in four days, which may make it hard for him/her to contribute to improving both articles. Sandy 19:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy! I'm away till the weekend, too! I'll do what I can --PopUpPirate 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- See also should be ahead of Notes and References per WP:LAYOUT (Wiki content first). A template might be useful for organizing the See also (sample at Tourette syndrome).
- Maybe manufacturing responsibilities could be converted to prose, telling the reader more about each item in the list.
- Can the information in the external jumps (e.g.; link Lockheed-Martin F-35 statistics summary.) either be incorporated as text referenced to the external site, or listed in External links? External jumps should be avoided.
- The article needs better inline citation; in addition to the cite tags there, here's another example:
- Some of the partner countries have wavered in their public commitment to the JSF program, hinting or warning that unless they receive more subcontracts or technology transfer, they will forsake JSF purchases for the Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale. Sandy 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This article needs references inserted in the various sections and tags removed and associated problems sorted out before it can stay an FA. Buckshot06 07:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient references (1c) and stub sections (1b and 2). Marskell 18:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. The issues raised at FAR have not been addressed, and it doesn't appear that anyone is working on the article. Sandy (Talk) 14:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove I compared the article at the time of its FA promotion with the version around 20 Sept, when some objections were raised on the talk page regarding its FA status. There was serious degradation in writing quality and neutrality, which included a lot of POV. While several editors are actively maintaining the article, it fails the stability requirement (FA criteria 1e), and consequently lacks neutrality (1d) and quality of writing (1a) at times. --Duk 20:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)