Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this one up. Review to follow shortly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Very impressive

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have some comments, none of which will hold up promotion to GA status:

Consider folding note 1 into the text. Some of the other notes should also be considered.
Some of the notes are not obviously referenced.
The "Combat use" section is messy, with one-sentence paragraphs (cf. MOS:PARA) nbut I have no suggestion for impriovement

The online references are missing access dates.

Looks really good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. This article took many hours to tune, and I'm not alone in the effort. The combat use section is rather short mainly because the aircraft only recently entered service, and many details of the deployments are not public. This article will take continual maintenance to ensure its quality. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]