Talk:Northrop YF-23/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

Dab links come up for Northrop and Lockheed. Fixed Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The woodoo-world.cz external link seems to time out. Fixed Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure/prose/images/detail

Performed my usual brief copyedit but generally everything above looks okay.

Referencing

All statements cited and works appear reliable. Main thing is inconsistencies in style:
- There's a mixture of US and British date formats in journal and retrieval dates.
- While most access dates appear as "Retrieved <date>" and "Retrieved: <date>" (with colon) -- should be consistent. Fixed Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Fraid we still have a mix of "Retrieved" and "Retrieved:" (with colon). I think the issue is that you use the "accessdate" parameter in some citations; this returns "Retrieved <date>" without a colon. The way around the inconsistency is to always use "Retrieved" in your manually written retrieval dates -- then they should all match up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All looks consistent now, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That took longer than necessary. Sorry, I missed the difference with the cite template ones. Thanks to Sp33dyphil for reformatting those to make consistent. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some cited links have retrieval dates and some don't -- all should, I think. Fixed Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, no, a number of online citations still don't have a retrieval date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Date formats are all D-M-Y format for US military. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This looks like a decent, succinct article on the alternative stealth fighter, so if you can just address the above minor points I'll be happy to pass it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyteto comments

I had wrote an elaborate summary of comments and sentences I think could use turning, with substitute suggestions also included. Wikipedia had a serious server error, and helpfully all that was lost. So hours later, now I feel the server is more stable, I'll try again. Here's hoping. Kyteto (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The YF-23s were relegated to museum exhibits." I would reword as "Both YF-23s are now museum exhibits". Fixed Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This was made more crucial by the emerging worldwide threats, including development and proliferation of Soviet Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class fighter aircraft." Fulcrum isn't really a class, I'd change this confusing wording towards: "The need for a more advanced aircraft was emphasised by foreign advances, emerging Soviet fighters like the Su-27 and MiG-29 were designed with considerable agility, and several other nations were proposing new aircraft as well." Fixed Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Piloted by Jim Sandberg, this fighter took off for its first flight on 26 October" I'd replace with: "This aircraft made its first flight on 26 October, piloted by Jim Sandberg". Fixed Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It has been speculated in the aviation press that the YF-22 was also seen as more adaptable to the Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter" I'd reword to "Miller made note of speculation that the YF-22 was also seen..."

Didn't change because another source had surfaced. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd redistribute some of the references in the first paragraph of the body, they're a bit bunched up as four in a row, while there's no others littered throughout. It isn't a problem at GA level, but as I am being asked for comments, the people up at FAC would probably tear into it as it is. Then again, some of the people at FAC need tearing into.... :P

Moved one source. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Both YF-23s were furnished in the configuration specified before the requirement for thrust reversing was dropped" This wording confuses me a little. Was there ever a prototype made with thrust reversing? And what is the 'configuration specified', specified where, in that paragraph? It could use a little clarity, though I'd be tempted to dump much of the sentence altogether, as I don't understand what it was trying to convoy. Perhaps I'm being a little dense though.

Fnlayson added that. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the requirement for thrust reversers was dropped during development (see Advanced Tactical Fighter#Request for proposals). The bulges in the fuselage skin for the engine was not shrunk after the reversers were dropped. Suppose I need to clarify this in the text.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this has been helpful, it hasn't been my intention to do anything other. I defer to Ian Rose as the more experienced primary reviewer, who shall have the final say. I'll try to think up some more comments tomorrow following a fresh look. Kyteto (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Kyteto, and also Fnlayson for his work. As the article seems to have stabilised again now, I had another quick run-though and am generally satisfied with mods but pls note above comment re. retrieval dates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passing as GA, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]