Talk:Lockheed Martin FB-22/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Steve7c8 (talk · contribs) 05:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Stivushka (talk · contribs) 06:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started review

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written article Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Well researched article. I did pick up a couple of issues in the final para of the "Design and development" section these are marked awaiting additional/alternative citations.Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Images are taken from a 2005 book published by Midland. To meet free usage criteria, you would need to prove that the image could not have been purchased or licensed (even if low res) which I think is not possible given that the book is still available for sale and is well within its copyright period.Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are taken from a 2005 book published by Midland. To meet free usage criteria, you would need to prove that the image could not have been purchased or licensed (even if low res) which I think is not possible given that the book is still available for sale and is well within its copyright period.Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Well researched and written article. There are a couple of points where the cited reference does not back up the text. I suspect these are cases of wrong source being used as the points being made are plausible and I suspect are correct. Your big problem is the images. Generally lifting artworks from published works that have unexpired copyright is a big no-no. The fair usage criteria are clear that, in addition to meeting the standard for nonprofit use and being low res, the image must not be available for purchase or license. I am going to put this on hold to allow you to make the necessary changes to the text (which should be straightforward as the article is in pretty good shape) but you will need to find alternative images. You have 7 days to make the required changes.