Talk:General Dynamics F-111C/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

Prose

Performed fairly extensive copyedit and am generally happy with the way it reads now -- no action req'd IMO.
In Design, however, it's pretty well all present tense -- I'm not certain of the standard in articles where aircraft is no longer operational but there are still some flying examples, however my feeling is that it should probably be altered to past tense throughout.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Nick for the change, and for your prior effort before I came. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Seems to cover major points; being familiar with this story I felt the details of its selection and purchase could stand some modification, which I did using a source already used in the article -- no further action req'd IMO.

Referencing

Structure

There's some repetition that I think can be put down to the structure employed but, on the other hand, that structure seems to be par for the course in aircraft articles so I can handle it -- no action req'd.

Supporting materials

All images appear appropriately licensed -- no action req'd.
Not sure why we need an F-111G image in the F-111C article, especially since it doesn't seem to highlight any differences in design. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sp for your responses, and Nick for taking care of the last outstanding item -- I know you helped enhance the article prior to this nom as well. Ready to pass as GA now, well done all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]