Talk:Hawker Hunter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll claim this now and try to review and leave detailed comments over the next few days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the time taken to complete this and thanks for your patience...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

Dab links: None found.
External links: Some issues came up using the checker -- pls have a look.

Prose & coverage

Performed a fairly extensive copyedit but generally prose and coverage seemed fine and I see no major issues here.

Referencing

Sources look reliable.
Citing generally very good however please add for:
- Royal Air Force: For most of the conflict the Hunters engaged in local air defence due to their lack of range.
- Belgium: The Hunters were used by Nos. 1, 3 and 9 Wings but did not serve for long; the aircraft with 1 Wing were replaced in 1958 by the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck, and most were scrapped afterwards.
- Sweden: End of both paragraphs.
- The initial list under Operators.

I'll scratch my head and think on how to do this one, I've answered the rest. I'll try an find a collective source, rather than cite them individually. Kyteto (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it only repeated operators already described separately, I wouldn't worry about citing, however I think there are more in this list than that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List for myself: Qatar,<:ref>Jackson 1990, p. 139.</ref> Oman,<:ref>Jackson 1990, p. 138.</ref> Kuwait,<:ref>Jackson 1990, p. 137.</ref> Kenya,<:ref>Jackson 1990, p. 137.</ref> Denmark,<:ref>Jackson 1990, p. 17.</ref> Abu Dhabi;<:ref>Jackson 1990, p. 131.</ref>; refs all acquired, now awaiting a clue as to how to add this visually to the article. Kyteto (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now installed. Kyteto (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Generally fine but one query: Is the list immediately under Operators a list of military operators or all operators? If the former, should have a subheader "Military" (and then trim your next subheader to "Civil" for consistency).

Supporting materials

Image appear appropriately licensed and captioned; alt text not present but not a requirement at this level.

Summary

Looking very good, if you can just address the fairly minor points above I'll have no trouble passing (finally)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed all your observations. Standing by for further action. Kyteto (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sp33dyphil

The Hawker Hunter was a British jet aircraft. Why "was"? The Lebanese are still operating them.

It appears to be convention, the Harrier (original generation) still in service, uses was; as does the de Havilland Venom and other such era aircraft. Eventually I guess they all become 'Was' rather than 'is'. Kyteto (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but doesn't "Variants" need to have some text, instead of just a link?

I'm not sure either, but it'd certainly be a pain to create an abridged version. Mind if I wait for Ian Rose to confirm the necessity? Kyteto (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit it didn't worry me particularly not seeing text there. Having checked the article itself, it does appear to be of a length that justifies its own separate article, but not such that it's easily summarised in the main Hunter article without either making the summary too detailed or simply not useful. I'm happy to wait a bit longer to get Sp33dyphil's response to this but otherwise I think we're ready to close this and list as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add {{Portal|Aviation}}
There are a number of dead and damaged links. Sp33dyphil ^Vote! 07:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with the portal and believe the links. Kyteto (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there being no further comment, I'm going to pass this as GA -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]