Talk:British Aerospace Sea Harrier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick couple of read throughts and this appears to be a good article. I will now do a detailed review to see whether this can be awarded Good Article status. This might take another day or so depending what, if any, problems arise in this stage. Pyrotec (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Development -

• Refs 4 and 5 are books; and they are both "called" thee times. The relevant page(s) number(s) should be given in the citations.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC) - The statement in the middle paragraph that BAE developed a navalised variant of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier is historically inaccurate, as BAE did not exist at that time, it would have been (probably) Hawker Siddeley and later British Aerospace.

• That's been corrected and explained. Is that OK or is more work needed? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's why I put a Y. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Doh, missed that. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Design -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) - Refs 17 is a book. The relevant page(s) number(s) should be given in the citation.

Unable to find a viewable copy of the book. Folded over to Bibliography, the reference is already covered by a second thus will be no direct loss of info or verifiability. Kyteto (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just leaving a second note that I believe I have taken care of all that has been outlined above. Kyteto (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Operational history -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Falklands War -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) - Its not clear what CAP is.

• WP:Lead -

• This is rather sparse. Its intended to provide both an Introduction to the article and a concise summary of the main points. I would suggest that it needs to be at least twice its current size.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative well illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. congratulations on poroducing an informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)