Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Lead feels a little short to me, I know it's a lot of hypotheticals but you could increase the description of the design and operational history I think.
  • Put (USAF) after United States Air Force.
  • "images and details on " -> "images and details of"
  • The artist's rendering is very nice, but gives no feeling of scale at all, it could be as large as a B-2 Spirit...
  • "noted design similarities" what were those?
  • "presumably for sensors or SATCOMs" according to whom? This is an encyclopedia so we can say we're presuming that.
  • "characteristics have been released" officially?
  • "from 38 feet (11.5m) to 90 feet (27 m)." surely if the Iranian image is anything to go by this range of estimates can be refined significantly?
  • "Kandahar Airfield" link.
  • "to the discussion of the RQ-170 Sentinel on 4 December 2009." what happened in that discussion?
  • "AEW has... successfully" non-breaking space before the ellipsis.
  • "is a flying wing design" overlinked.
  • "electro-optical/infrared" link.
  • "used for strike missions" so is it postulated that the UAV is weaponised?
  • That's used in speculation, so I'd leave it there. Payload could also mean various sensors and such. The "used for strike missions: could also mean the locating part of the strike; for example, it was used in the monitoring part of the strike against Osama bin Laden. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 14:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led Bill Sweetman" no need for repeating first names if surname can be subsequently used unambiguously.
  • "Phil Finnegan, a UAV..." why is this a long quote? Why not paraphrase it into prose?
  • "expected that they would be" -> "expected to be"
  • "report, Bill Sweetman argued" same again.
  • "on 1 September 2005" vs "September 4, 2009." pick one format and stick with it throughout.
  • "Aviation Week reported" italics.
  • "fitted with a full motion video capability" wouldn't that have been part of the EO/IR capability already mentioned?
  • "electronic warfare unit[30][31][32][33] had" four cites? look to bundle them if absolutely necessary, and I would move it to the end of the sentence as it looks awkward.
  • Define ISAF before using the abbreviation.
  • "the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps aerospace" overlinked.
  • "Tasnim news agency" news agency is part of the title.
  • "44th Reconnaissance Squadron - Creech Air Force Base, Nevada" " en-dash, not hyphen.
  • "Data from [43]" put the name of the source here.
  • "38 ft (12 m) [43]" no spaces before refs.
  • "The American built RQ-170 in Iran." no full stop.
  • In what sense are those "Related development" related?
  • You link the work in ref 2 but not many of the others?
  • Ref 16, WaPo is a work and needs italics. Compare with ref 35.
  • Ref 44, author isn't "Daily Telegraph".
  • Are those external links useful for material to go into the article?
  • Template: "designations 1924-1962" should be en-dash, also same applies "1962-present".

That's all I have for now, so I'll put it on hold. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I've implemented everything. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm content it's good enough, so I'm passing. Good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, thank you for your time! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinel/GA1&oldid=1013616493"