Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-16 Fighting Falcon/archive1

F-16 Fighting Falcon

I have suggested this article as it is about an impressive and important vehicle and is a very well written article. User: Tom walker, 26/01/06 19:01 GMT

Object - A nice article, but see Convair B-36 for an example of a featured article on an aircraft. This one needs some references, and some sort of infobox to collect all the information in the section "Specifications" would also be a good idea (although I see Convair B-36 does not have one). Some section are rather list-y (again, compare the amount of prose in Convair B-36). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, agree that the article needs more prose, and also needs to cite references and have inline citations. AndyZ 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~Comment There are no inline citations or references, most of the arment details could be placed into an info box for easier reading. In all honest this should have gone through a peer review before coming here, but thats my opinion. TomStar81 ~~01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)~~23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - The text needs editing. The sections should be broken up more. Development history is a bit informal, not enough dates. Nominate it for a peer review, I suggest. Guapovia 09:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I submitted F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and have subsequently edited it many times to deal with every minor error, and yet I get no votes for the article(although one conditional support). Frankly I would support this article, had I not already witnessed the bias against Aircraft articles. And the B-36 is nowhere near as good as either the F-16 or the F-35 article IMHO. --The1exile 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am as anti-aircraft as a rabbi is anti-Semitic.: ) I live for aviation. Aircraft are my life. There's a Wikiproject for Aircraft - I'm a member of it. Join up, we'll give you a hand, or if it's a great article, we'll support it to the ends of the earth. How's that? Guapovia 15:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I would like to point out that bias here is not limited to the fighter plane articles. I would support this article, the information is good and the pictures are awesome; however, I can not overlook the two points I raised. Out of respect for the fact that this was not peer reviewed I decided to give the nominator the benifit of a doubt and changed my object to a comment. TomStar81 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems perfectly fine to me. However, it's not outstanding - yet. I'd support the earlier comment that the article would benefit greatly from citing its sources. In addition, a 'service history' section describing how the F-16 has performed in combat would be a nice addition. Photos of some of the different variants (especially the advanced versions currently under construction) would also be nice - the pictures of the Thunderbirds are, IMO, a waste of space as these are not operational aircraft. --Nick Dowling 10:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]