Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hawker Siddeley Harrier/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Hawker Siddeley Harrier

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this aircraft topic has been well covered, it is compliant with the five A-class criteria, and would benefit from this level of review and evaluation. It is my intention to respond to comments to drive further improvement, and take note of what factors are praised, both for the benefit of this article on the first-generation Harrier and other articles that are being overhauled as of now. It is my opinion that this is currently a sound example of how to layout articles focused on aircraft and developed to an extent suitable to satsify the curiousity of both idle readers and more dedicated followers of aviation. Putting it shortly; an iconic aircraft, which has been covered well. Kyteto (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ
  • Oppose: an iconic aircraft indeed. I'm better with biographies, but this is quite special, so I'll depart from my comfort zone a little. I've only got as far as the P.1154 heading, but I've come up with a fair few issues, which suggests the article is under-prepared. Most of the issues are fairly basic things—look at my copy-editing, MoS compliance, consistency and read the whole article aloud to yourself because parts of it don't make sense. Since the issues are mostly not to do with content, I think they can be addressed within the course of the ACR, so let me know when you've done that and fixed the specific issues below and I'll complete my review.
    • "Substantial but not overwhelming table of contents". You have 26 headers and sub-headers in the TOC—perhpas it might be worth getting rid of a few?
I've managed to send some away, down to 22. I could make it 21 by making the Popular Culture section redirect vanish, but I imagine people would complain, and it would likely get recreated in all its messy glory from scratch with nothing there. Kyteto (talk)
    • Defence Minister needs explaining. In fact, you should give his exact title (eg Secretary of State for Defence) and link it if there's an appropriate article.
    • The bloke's name is Duncan Sandys, though is it really relevant who came up with the white paper?
Name's gone, sentence changed. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • VTOL is a specific and quite technical term. I know what it means, but I know a bit about RAF aircraft. I'm not sure a casual reader would know. I know it's linked in the lead, but I would link and/or explain the acronym in the origins section as well.
I've added a short something, tell me if it is good enough though. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This may have been encouraged" according to whom?
This name has now been added. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Design work on the P.1127 formally began in 1957 by Sir Sydney Camm..." doesn't make sense. Do you mean "was begun", perhaps?
I am dyslexic, my grammar is an unfortunant stumbling point on occasion. Your improvement has been substituted. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The close cooperation between the airframe company, Hawker, and the engine company, Bristol, is viewed as one of the key factors that allowed the development". I'm sorely tempted to stick a [by whom?] on that.
The person has now been named. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "overcome many technical obstacles and political setbacks" is a touch POV
Tried "allowed the development of the Harrier to continue in spite of technical obstacles and..." instead. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As is "barely a year and a half ". A more exact time would be better, such as 18 months.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A total of 960 sorties were made during the trials, including 1,366 take offs and landings" Wait, what? I'm no mathmatician, but I'm fairly sure 1366 is a bigger number than 960, so how can 1366 of X be included in Y if there were only 960 Ys?
I am unable to provide greater insight firmly. But as this was a training/testing/evaluation setup, perhaps multiple landings/take offs were committed within a single sortie; as a testing process or to train the pilots to handle the aircraft. The number is confirmed and sourced correctly, the content being taken directly from the accounts of RAF senior officers. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • BE CONSISTENT: US, U.S., USA, United States... you're all over the place. In encyclopaedic language, United States is preferred and US (without those weird dots because they're generally only used in American English articles) thereafter.
Exacted now, I believe. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lost was the exact wording used in the document, exchanged for destroyed (It may not have been 'physically oblitorated' and may be a static display today; it did not fly again thus I guess that counts as destroyed). The others were tranferred to the US as several branches of the US Military wanted to trial the aircraft's performance, which is in the continuing sentence. Kyteto (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part two I might just review this in chunks and let you get on with things one chunk at a time. I'm still seeing some of the kind of issues one would expect to be ironed out before an ACR, but not as many as there were in the first quarter of the article. Did you read it a loud to yourself? I've found that helps me when I'm going back over my writing. FWiW, I'm not posting these fairly minor points to be pedantic—the point of the exercise is not just to improve the article but to help you improve your writing (and everybody's wrtiting has room for improvement).HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a sentece starts with "however", that should be immediately followed by a comma (I got one of these, I don't know if there are more.)
    • Abbreviations: don't use an abbreviation and then a full name in the smae sentence. E.g. The RAF and the Royal NAVY—the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy is preferable.
    • The RAF and the Royal Navy then planned... when?
    • What does issuing ASR 384 mean?
    • Be careful with your use of with to connect two halves of a sentence, e.g. with the first of these making its maiden flight... (I've fixed this one)
    • Does an aircraft take or make its maiden flight? It doesn't really matter which one, but you use both—pick one and stick to it
    • Why does Kingston upon Thames get a link but not Dunsfold?
    • Watch your linking ("ol" in my edit summaries is shorthand for overlinking)
    • ...the United States Marine Corps were mainly similar to the RAF's Harrier GR.1.[38] In 1979 the USMC started upgrading their Harriers as the AV-8C.[39] A total of 102 AV-8A and 8 TAV-8A Harriers were ordered and received by the US Marines Corps can you guess what I'm going to say about that?
    • "In addition" is not a great way to start a sentence (and it should be followed by a comma)
    • It was powered by the more powerful Pegasus 6 engine, which required new air intakes with auxiliary blow-in doors to give the required airflow at low speed, while the aircraft's wing was redesigned again with more area, and the aircraft's undercarriage was strengthened. That's a bit of a run-on sentence.
    • What does more area mean?
    • It was believed in a high intensity conflict airbases were vulnerable and likely to be quickly overrun and knocked out,[N 7] the ability to scatter Harrier squadrons to dozens of small "alert pads" right on the front lines that were unable to accommodate other aircraft was seen as highly prized to military strategists, the US Marines were highly enthusiastic about this capability and soon procured many aircraft for their own purposes. You try reading that aloud in one breath! Also, "for theor own purposes" seems redundant.

That's as far as the Controls and handling header. I'll watchlist this page and come back when you've got through that. While these are specific points, the general principles can be easily applied to the rest of the article, so please don't confine yourself just to fixing the issues I'm bringing up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have effectively responded to your comments. I shall continue my reading in advance of your return. Kyteto (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By that do you mean you've fixed all the problems I've raised? Sorry to sound like I'm berating you (I'm really not), but more specific responses would be helpful if possible. Have you been through the remiander of the article to look for relatively straightforward issues that are easily fixed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have checked over your points multiple times, including just prior to making this reply, to ensure I have taken actions and evaluations on every option you have raise. In addition, the edit log will attest that I have spent in excess of five hours trying to piece things together better, resolve commentry issues, and add more detail where I've tapped a few more searchs successfully. I am trying, and am going beyond the obvious/straightforward and easy routes to improvement in order to achieve what is sought. Kyteto (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you most certainly have my continued attention. I'd like to see this make A-class and eventually FA almost as much as you. I'll try to get to the end of the article over the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • HJ part three (controls and handling to United States Marine Corps) If it's not too much trouble, could you make replies under each bullet point, either along the lines of "done" or a query or dispute. This makes it easier for everyone (especially me) to see where we're making progress. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The general rule is one ref per paragraph, so the first paragraph of "controls and handling" needs an inline citation.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "considerable" seems very wooly to me. Is that the wording used by the source?
    • I think most people know what a helicopter is, so it shouldn't be linked.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if some of these notes might not be better of in the prose?
Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency: zero degrees [...] and 98°.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following standard flight is probably superfluous—We're not writing an instruction manual.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If ypu're going to include the tidbit about the trnasatalantic flight, it would be nice to know how long it took
Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive my ignorance, but what was going on in Belize that mandated the presence of fighter jets?
Neighbouring Guatemala had become an extremely chaotic place, as well as a genocide against a faction of their own people, they also decided to proclaim lordship over Belize. Strangely enough, Belize was not particularly thrilled by its new self-appointed owners, and feared a military invasion would occur to stamp Guatemala's authority on the country. Several nations spoke out against the aggressive stance and Britain deployed the Harriers there to deter the military buildup and keep the status quo. It would have been a similar situation to Iraq and Kuwait, but the invasion never took place; perhaps more because of the mess Guatemala was in rather than anything to do with the power of the Harrier! But yes, it was there with the objective to cool regional tensions and deter aggression. Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is far from how I'd like it to be, but it was a compromise with other editors to see it included at all. I could either remove all reference/linkage to the Operation name; or elaborate it. Please advise on the course of action preferred.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • How did the RAF aircraft fare from being launched from ships? Were any modifications necessary? How did they perform in relation to Sea Harriers? This seems quite significant, so I'm surprised it only has a throwaway sentence.
Quite an extensive story actually, a whole new navagation system had to be invented and produced in under two weeks, which normally would have taken years, so that the RAF Harriers would have carrier landing navagational aids, the Sea Harriers had a more extensive system built into them but that had not been an option. I'll dig this up. The Sea Harriers and Harriers mainly did different things, the RAF Harriers would have been far inferior in the air to air role and typically stuck with providing close air support for the ground forces, the Sea Harrier normally stuck to keeping the fleet safe, but did perform ground attack missions as well. Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A figure for Sea Harrier losses in the Falklands would be an interesting addition.
    • Is it known how many Harriers were deployed to the Falklands?
I'll do what I can to find reliable numbers for these two.
Dealt with. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part four (United State Marince Corps to end)
    • Did the USAF procure any Harriers?
Done. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is currently note 20 would be better off incorporated into prose.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are Spain and Thailand the only other countries to have operate Harrier Is? In which case "including" should eb removed.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have though List of Harrier variants, or just Harrier variants (as per Hawker Hurricane variants would be more preferrable a name, simpler. I would have to coordinate this with the variants sections of five other articles all on the same aircraft, which shouldn't be amazingly hard but a pile of work to cite up and shunt along. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the "opertaors" sectiion redundant to the sections above it? Could the infomration on squadrons be incorporated into those sections? Or it could even be spun out into a separate article.
The Operators section has always been a little odd, but it is strongly urged by standard WP: Aviation aircraft article layout; I can raise it on the project page to see what can be done if this is sought. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also needs trimming—anything linked in the body should be removed, which will leave you with only a small linkfarm
I cannot do much with this, my reductions are now being reverted: OTher editors disagree with the need for reduction. That is something I cannot do much to overcome. Kyteto (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the end of the world. I won't insist on it her, but others might at FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sold on the usefulness of all four ELs, but I'll leave that with you because it's not like it's an enormous link farm.

Well part four was easy! We got there in the end, so once all my concerns above have been addressed, I see no reason not to support. Excellent work on getting the article so detailed (though some of it might need to be spun off into daughter articles) and well done for sticking with the review despite my long list of criticisms—you've done a true service to free human knowledge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is nearly ready, if you want to give it another look over that would be great. The commentry is often sending me down avenues I hadn't considered, and is creating positive changes/traffic/discussions over content, which is perhaps the best outcome of all. Kyteto (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad the exercise is proving productive. I'll have another read through it when I can, which might be tomorrow evening (UTC) or Thursday afternoon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-read the article and checked to make sure my comments have been addressed and, well, I'm impressed. Amazing what a difference a bit of polish can make to an article. I'm happy to give it my full support and I hope you'll take it to FAC once any other issues have been ironed out here. Excellent work. Truly excelent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D

Oppose While this is a fairly comprehensive and nicely written article, I also agree that it's not at the level of polish which is the norm for A class articles. I agree with HJ Mitchell's suggestion that the article could do with a copy edit to tighten the prose further. My specific comments are:

  • The article seems to have an excessively strong focus on the Harrier's British service. Coverage of USMC service is much more limited, even though it seems that the USMC operated a roughly comparable number of aircraft. For instance, it's not stated where the USMC aircraft were based, how they were used and whether they saw combat.
The problem is, in the 40+ books I read for the redevelopment of this article, I didn't find much more information on the USMC. The majority of the RAF's operational history focuses on the Falklands War, which is kind of a bummer for the USMC as they didn't have an equivilent chapter of history, there's no similar event. The reason there's not more stuff on them, is that even sources like Norden couldn't think of that much to say about the USMC's service. I could have missed a few things, but I think I (and other editors) gave it a reasonable bash of the wheel to see what had happened. For the USMC, the Harrier was a sideshow, while the RAF and especially the RN found the Harrier as their first, last, and only option to operating at all, and it just so happened that it became crucial in a major conflict for one and not the other, exacerbating things unhelpfully. I'll see what I can pick up though; I'll never go so far as to say I've read everything to do with something. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I find it ironic/bizarre that now the USMC, in spite of fighting no major conflicts with their Harriers, now have a bigger Operation History then the RAF does, in spite of the Falklands War. If anything, I'd be expected the RAF fans to be irritated that the USMC is getting a bigger share of the pie. But orders are orders. Kyteto (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could spin those sections out into separate articles. The artilce probably is a little long and so a few daughter articles might be beneficial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a couple of good books on the air war in the Falklands Islands (the British official history and the rather good Osprey book Air War in the Falklands 1982) which should provide more detail on the RAF Harriers if that would be helpful (though the general emphasis in both books seems to be on the Sea Harriers) Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to create dedicated subarticles to RAF Harrier Service and USMC Harrier Service, I had always worried it would be too much of a duplicate of existing information, and infringe upon other articles (Sea Harrier, Harrier II ect). I suppose if I completely the refitting of the MD Harrier II article next month, I could make the changes and read up enough on that Harrier version to give an effective history from the 70s up to the present day. Also, I've always foun more information to be helpful, feel free to add some if you notice anything particularly pertinent. Kyteto (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The level of technical detail in the 'Development' section is probably excessive given that the final state of the engine, etc in the production aircraft (which is the topic of the article) is described well in the 'Design' section.
Section thinned and daughter'ed off; is this sufficiently resolved? Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The descriptions of the aircraft vary between past and present tense - this gets a bit confusing
  • http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=609 seems to have turned into a link farm, and doesn't reference the claim that 718 Harriers were built (was that figure for just these initial variants? It seems a rather high number for aircraft which equipped only about 10 squadrons for 20 years)
This is now removed for good. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their amphibious assault ships" - the amphibious assault ships are operated by, and belong to, the US Navy, not the Marines
Huh, okay. I blame the book's wording. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harrier squadrons saw several deployments to deter aggression in times of regional tension." - this is rather POV wording
It has been removed, a context has been added in its place. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both the Sea Harrier and the Harrier would be a crucial element of the 1982 Falklands War" - 'would be' should be replaced with 'were'
Done. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the field of VTOL aircraft;[N 1] VTOL standing for Vertical Take Off/Landing aircraft, which wouldn't need runways" - this is an awkward way of introducing this acronym - why not replace it with something like "Vertical Take Off/Landing (VTOL) aircraft, which did not need runways"
Rewritten. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's meant by "The United States was also a valuable source of investment for engine development"? - did American investors (private or Government) provide money to help fund the development of the engine, or were they providing technical advice or some other resources? (or all of the above)
Government body that provided some funding for the engine, either out of curiousity or the want for partner nations to be strengthened in capability: possibly both. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Experience onboard the commando carrier HMS Bulwark in 1966 convinced project officers that less reactive materials would be substituted for all uses of magnesium in the Kestrel's airframe, in any further prototypes and production aircraft." - this is really vague - what was this experience and why did magnesium need to be totally ruled out?
Magnesium + the sea environment = quickly wrecked magnesium components. It is a highly reactive substance. Some say that magnesium was kept in the design as long as possble to spite the navy and keep them away from the Harrier; treat this as hearsay. This experience was basically ship board testing, to judge how suitable/unsuitable a Harrier aircraft would be upon the deck of an aircraft carrier. No doubt the test influenced later choices to move to the Invincible 'Harrier carriers' and the Sea Harrier. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the R in "NATO Requirement" need to be capitalised?
Not particularly, change enacted. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of the Sea Harrier left me confused about whether this simply a variant of the basic Harrier design or a significant development of the design - the Sea Harrier isn't really described in detail, but when it is it seems to have quite different capabilities.
How different/similar it is has been a political and academic arguement for decades; it really depends on who you ask. We aren't really supposed to be covering too much into the Sea Harrier as it has its own article, hence a section was created to discuss the family differences overall, and talk of the Sea Harrier kept to where it belongs for the most part. It operated under a different command, designed from the same prototype models, but crafted for different purposes and outfitted significantly differently in its avionics and weapons capability. It didn't help that it could perform normal ground attack missions like the RAF Harriers did. Destinct, but interchangable, and rarely does anybody bother to make the destinction; is an overlooked destinction still destinct? Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the Falklands War, the RAF Harriers would not see further combat" - you should specify that the this is the GR1/GR3s and that later variants saw action over Yugoslavia and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "convincing officers"?
That is a human grammatical error. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the display of usefulness of the Harrier on small carriers" - this is rather awkwardly worded
  • "the navies of nations such as Spain and later Thailand" - were there others, or just Spain and Thailand?
Depends on how you define 'Harriers'. If by the specific first generation models (non-Sea Harrier), just those two. If you count the Sea Harrier, also first generation and specifically dedicated to carrier operations, India comes into the picture. If you define it as 'what people commonly point at and call 'Harriers and operated on carriers, then Italy joins in too. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's meant by "in support of Sea Harrier training."? - were these aircraft used to train Sea Harrier pilots (in which case something like "as part of of Sea Harrier training" would be clearer), or for some other purpose? Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment, I don't think that the statement that "Following the successful conclusion of those tests 'ski-jumps' was added to all RN aircraft carriers at the end of their flight decks" is correct - HMS Ark Royal wasn't fitted with a ski jump. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the trials concluding, Ark Royal had been sentenced to 'death' for a while, and was on the verge of standing down for good. There'd be little point in heavily refitting the carrier (not to mention boning up the catapults, and the planes that needed them) when it would be retired a few months later. And to be fair, the conclusions of 'what was the best angle of ramp' weren't established as firm until 1980-1981, while the old Ark Royal was gone in 1979. I can adjust the wording, with a clarification on dates. Kyteto (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful - without dates, this reads like the trials took place in the late 60s. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, satisfactory? Kyteto (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, are there any other comments? Kyteto (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Overall a good article but there are a large number of prose issues, some of which I have listed below. I hope these comments aren't too discouraging as a lot of good work has clearly been done to this article so far:
    • The citation check tool reveals multiple errors (all "Multiple references contain the same content");
I am unfamiliar with this tool, could you elaborate on it? Kyteto (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gday. This tool can be accessed by hitting the 'edit' button at the top of the page, then click 'Cite', then 'Error check'. Tick all three check boxes and click on the 'Check button'. You should then recieve a report on the citations in the article. This tool should highlight any duplicated refs (which you can reduce by naming them) and any duplicated named refs. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I have learnt something, and it appears to read as all clear now. Kyteto (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I really see the point of the "Popular culture" section. Its a single unreferenced section. To be honest I would ditch it and include a link to the article in the body of the text;
Done, but to See Also section, I could not see a relevant place to link it into in the main body. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "including 1,366 take offs", AFAIK this should be hypenated to "take-offs";
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "had additionally undertaken", could this be more simply worded as "had undertaken"?;
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should formally introduce NATO before using the abbreviation, and it could also be wikilinked;
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "partnership between Hawkers Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas", should this be "Hawker Siddley" not "Hawkers"?;
This has also been done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Harrier's role was typically that of an attack against ground targets", could this just be reworded as "The Harrier's role was typically that of ground attack"?
Done, your version is substituted. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was believed in a high intensity conflict", missing word here I think, perhaps "It was believed that in a high intensity conflict"
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked this a little further. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The water injection function had originally been added at the behest of Colonel Bill Chapman of the United States Air Force." Who was Chapman and what was his involvement?
There did not appear to be a Wiki article on him, he was an individual working at one of the joint US-West Europe military development aid organisations, with the organisational mission of helping along promising military programs to counterbalance the significant impact Soviet military provisions were having on Eastern Europe's military capability. I have added some detail, but there is neither an article on him or the Mutual Weapons Development Team; and he was a relatively small peice of the puzzle. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with your addition. Seems adequate to me now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The 90° place is generally", to me this seems badly worded I'm afraid but I'm not sure of how you might fix it;
Wording changed, please notify if this is not resolved. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats good now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dog fight is used inconsistently, sometimes you write "dog fight" and in others "dog-fight" with a hyphen;
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "United States Marine Corps" should be abbreviated after first use (in the lead). In places you use the abbreviation without having formally introduced it, and only do so half way through the article;
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "more than 2000 Harrier sorties", should be "2,000" per WP:MOSNUM;
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Marine Corps were enthusiastic" should this be "the Marine Corps was"?
Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a request with one of MilHist's most experienced copy editors to look over the article, I await his response. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too easy. Good work so far improving the article to this point so I'm happy to remove my oppose. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I was asked to take a look at this one, but I don't think it's ready yet. Please read it carefully, checking for simple things like whether you're saying what you mean to say, and not mixing singular and plural. I've made some changes to the lead, but there's a lot left: "arose from the 1960s" (in?), "A derived supersonic aircraft" (not appropriate for the first paragraph, since it never happened), "their Harriers ... as a naval aircraft" (plural, singular), "to deter aggression in times of regional tension" (to deter regional aggression), "Both the Sea Harrier and the Harrier were a crucial element of the" (plural, singular ... better would be "were crucial to the"), "extremely" (remove adjectives that don't add information), "a long term interest" (in formal AmEng and I think BritEng, drop the "a"; a hyphen is optional), "Similar V/STOL aircraft, in operational role" (plural/singular), "the in-development" (more of a German than an English construction). - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes in work. But I do not agree with the supersonic aircraft comment. The sentence in the Lead on it summarizes a whole section and is background to the Harrier. Maybe shorten it, but simply removing it is not appropriate. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to put it in the lead; I was saying it's not appropriate for the first paragraph because it doesn't tell us anything about the Harrier per se, and this article is about the Harrier. The best place for it would be the beginning of some kind of narrative (i.e. chronology). - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it says something important about the origins of the Harrier; that it was a second-choice fallback option to the real production item that the supersonic version was supposed to be, and it only came into service following that design's collapse. The Harrier is a basic reilliteration of the Kestrel prototype series, modernised and advanced to production quality. It'd seem odd to mention it later on, when chronologically it was an early development. I had built the first paragraphy mostly around two priniciples, describing the aircraft and summarising the development section below. I'll think on a different way to twist it out. Kyteto (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's important to keep it in the first paragraph, I don't object. I'd prefer if it the mention were shorter, something like: "A replacement for the cancelled Hawker Siddeley P.1154, ..." - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened it down, opinions? Kyteto (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, with a tweak. I'm still looking for a writing guide I can link to that deals with the subject of over-explaining. In scholarly writing, it's often enough just to put two ideas side by side and let the reader draw the reasonable conclusion. If the Harrier was developed after a more advanced plane was canceled, that probably means the Harrier was meant to take its place, so I removed that clause. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is headed to FAC, you'll need to lose the italics that aren't supported at WP:MOSTEXT, such as Harrier Jump Jet, Harrier GR.1/GR.3 and AV-8A Harrier. Also, WP:SLASH recommends against slashes unless they're an established part of the name, which I don't think applies to "Harrier GR.1/GR.3 variants" ... that should probably be "Harrier models GR.1 and GR.3" or "Harrier GR.1 and Harrier GR.3". - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the result of which being": wordy.
  • "Vertical Take Off/Landing": Vertical Take Off and Landing, per WP:SLASH.
  • All your thrust figures need conversion, probably to kN.
  • "Six prototypes were built in total; three of them crashed": Of the six prototypes built, three crashed
  • "made a tripartite agreement for the purchase of": jointly agreed to purchase
  • "by the time evaluations finalised": by the end of evaluations
  • "One aircraft was destroyed in an accident, six of the remainder were transferred to the United States for evaluation by the Army, Air Force and Navy, while designated as XV-6A Kestrel.": One aircraft was destroyed in an accident, and six of the remainder were redesignated as XV-6A Kestrels and transferred to the United States for evaluation by the Army, Air Force and Navy. (Comma splice, and always consider moving the more complicated element in a series to the end of the series.)
  • "experimentation work": experimentation
  • "... assigned for further trials and experimentation work at RAE Bedford, one was modified to ...": comma splice.
  • There's still a bit too much left here for the poor copy editor. I'll check back in a week. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe "take-off" is usual in BritEng (for the noun); "takeoff" is AmEng. Please check all of the text.
  • Some units need converting just before Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier#Differences between versions; I'm forgetting which ones at the moment, but they should be easy to find.
  • I stopped halfway, at Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier#Differences between versions. These are my edits. If anyone wants to check my edit summaries and take it from there, I'll be happy to look again and see if I can support. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think Mason 1971 has been replaced by the 91 edition of the same book.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unused sources, and was reverted by another editor, on the basis that they may be used in the future. Should they remain in place, is it necessary to bin them? Kyteto (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bzuk has reinserted the unused refs. I strongly suggest creation of a "Further reading" section for those. It's in MOS at WP:FURTHER ... • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check them all now, but I believe I uncovered the source for the image listed, I have added the URL to its own discussion page. Kyteto (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All images seem to be sourced fine by my clicking across. If you wish, double-check nonetheless. Is the mentioned image now sufficiently sourced? Kyteto (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-ord comment: this review has been open for 28 days now and as such is due to be closed. As it appears that there are currently two supports and some comments that may or may not have been addressed, the article doesn't quite have the support required to promote it. However, as it is close, I ask if reviewers who have commented but not supported, please take a moment to look at the article again and state whether or not your concerns have been adequately addressed (preferably with a support or oppose). This will help determine consensus. I will then close accordingly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I would prefer to be rejected by editor objections rather editorial apathy. I believe I have tried to answer everybody's concerns, I shall now re-read and check. Kyteto (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not too much trouble to you guys, I'd appreciate a little wiggle-room. Although I'm explicitly supporting, there are still a few issues that need to be worked out but I don't have the time right now. If it could be left open another few days, I'd be grateful—at least that way, if it fails, it won't be through lack of effort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can stay open a couple more days (there is precedent for keeping reviews open a bit longer than 28 days). I happen to know that Anotherclown won't be able to re-review within the timeframe, though, because he is "out bush" for another week or so, but hopefully one of the other reviewers will be able to support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I've added a couple of tags that need to be dealt with. One is for a particularly awkward sentence and the other concerns political issues with using USMC Harriers in the short-range air defense role or somesuch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to answer the political issues quiery. It was the opinion of a senior officer of the USMC that there were political hinderances to the procurement of Harriers, but made no specific allegations against person or issue, only that the practicality/usefulness was a far better arguement than the generic political ney-saying in Congress. I did seek out another work, identifying that there was specific scepticism over V/STOL aircraft as a catagory at that time, and how the future of the entire field swung on how the Harrier was perceived as performing. Kyteto (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've also rewritten the akward statement, give it a whirl. Kyteto (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but it's still not clear what political issues were involved. It might be simplest to delete that part of the sentence unless you can clarify what issues were involved.
It niggles me, but it is gone. Sadly we'll never know as to what the officer knew in this regard. Kyteto (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten it. It basically means that the Pegasus 6 engine was the original powerplant the plane came out of the factory with in its first year of production, but quite quickly the superior Pegasus 11 arrived on the scene and the RAF upgraded all operation planes to use that engine at the double; since then the Pegasus 11 has powered all other Harrier variants, with tweaking, kiboshing, and changes to suit the naval environment, or to exploit the greater room allowed for the engine in the Harrier II's airframe. Pgasus 5 was the original but short lived engine that went out at day one, the Pegasus 11 is in effect the definative engine powering all Harriers in service today, and most of the retired first generation ones at that, if the frames on static display still had their engines it'd be likely that they would have these engines inside as well. Kyteto (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. For the benefits of co-ords looking to close this and for my own sanity, I'm posting this here! I believe (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) the main issue left is prose and MoS compliance. I've been through the article head to toe and fixed most things. What we really need is a fresh pair of eyes to proof read it and fix any remaining issues. Dank has done great work with the top half and I've asked Malleus to cast an eye over it. Is there anything else that needs to be addressed for this to meet the criteria? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear this article is now destined to fail, we have asked much of the patience of the A-level coordinator, and sufficient support has not come forward. This has not been a failure in terms of article refinement, but this status does not look like it will be awarded this time. Thank you all for your efforts. Kyteto (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: I have closed this review now as it has been open for 33 days, which is five days beyond the usual 28 days; as the article only has two clear supports, it unfortunately doesn't have the required support at this stage (minimum three without offsetting opposes). You are able to renominate the article for another ACR as soon as you feel it is ready (there is no minimum wait time), although it might be best to undertake a peer review before doing so to ensure success next time round. I trust that you won't be discouraged from further improving this article and as a personal note, I think that the article is looking quite good and you are to be commended for your hard work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 26 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier/archive1&oldid=1075713998"