Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hawker Siddeley Harrier

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Siddeley Harrier

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk)

I have decided to renominate this article for review following the encouragement of multiple editors, who have praised the quality of this article. The last review failed, in part due to inperfect preperation, but also due to not enough reviewers issuing finishing conclusions of support or oppose, which meant the nomination went flat rather than an outright failure by opinion. Additionally, numerous copy-editing exercises have been carried out by multiple editors, as per recommendation in the last review. This will probably be the last time I disturb the MilHist reviewers with this article, if this time does not pass, I'll abandon efforts to proceed for further reviewing, such as eventual FA-level review. Now that some issues have been settled, I feel ready to take on new criticisms and suggestions. Kyteto (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the previous review can be found at WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hawker Siddeley Harrier/archive1. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the last nomination. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is fully referenced, well written, and meets the other A-class requirements. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional support~~ Support Count this as a support, because I'd like to see alt text, which isn't hard to write considering the calibre of the nominator. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text is not a requirement any more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that very well. It's not as important as other aspects, but it's better to have it than not. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per last time. The last nomination was under-prepared, and the amount of work that was required was quite daunting. Kyeto and Fnlayson did an astounding job in addressing the majority of those concerns, but unfortunately the review stagnated a bit. Hopefully this one will go better, now that the vast majority of the concerns have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier#Differences between versions. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone find items that need correcting, go ahead and post them so they can be corrected before the 28th day of this review. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.