Talk:FEAST test

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 has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article reveals a lot of details about FEAST, yet it acknowledges that the test must be kept secret. Is this really appropriate?

192.36.95.109 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article also indicates the webpages, wherein all the sequences of the test are explained. So, I think here there is nothing "illegal", but only an official article of information, which are already in the internet and for which some firms pay to get such an information. And I think with these information, given in this article, you will not have any advantageous, if you take this test; for example it only says that cubes must be put together....but is there any practice example?

Copyedit notes

Major reorganisation of existing text.
Removal of list of Eurocontrol member states, as this isn't needed here, and should already be covered in the main Eurocontrol article.
Removal of excessive detail and "examples" in test detail section.
Tidied up the external links.

To do:

"Third section" of the English test not in original text. Have left the number of sections as three, whilst giving the two available examples. Need confirmation of the number of sections - and if indeed three, add the missing one.
Still too many trivial links in the text
Would benefit from inline references. Have left assertions within the original text as "references" where they apply, but these need to be turned into proper reference.

--Haruth (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]