Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hawker Siddeley Harrier/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:43, 30 August 2011 [1].

Hawker Siddeley Harrier edit

Featured article candidates/Hawker Siddeley Harrier/archive1

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that this article, on a highly important and unique aircraft, with a popular recognition effective making the Harrier an icon of an era, is a well researched, and well reviewed, article that is one of the better aviation articles to be generated to date, and is worthy of being considered to be one of Wikipedia's best works. The article has been extensively researched and developed, and I feel this is now above normal levels of quality, and serves as an example for other aircraft articles to be modelled upon. I also feel that the continued criticism of review shall fuel continued improvement and result in a further improved article. Kyteto (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A lot of work has gone into this article at its two A-class reviews at MilHist. I first dropped in on the review because, although not my area of expertise, it's an iconic aircraft. At that time, the article had clearly been painstakingly researched and put together, but lacked the polish or finesse of an A-class article or FA. After a lot of elbow grease from myself and others, I think it now has that finesse and deserves recognition as one of our best articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors

Think I've correctly addressed this issue. Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 14: what kind of source is this?

Tweaked the citation with a catlogue url, but I don't understand what exactly you're asking me for? It is a publication from within the USAF. Kyteto (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether it was a book, journal, report, or other type of publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing bibliographic info for Jefford 2005, Norden 2006 (unless these were typos?)

Typos fixed. Kyteto (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No citations to Jackson 1973, Scott 2009

Removed entries. Kyteto (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure all page ranges use endashes (rechecked 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC), not done)
- That was tedious, but done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Need page numbers for all book citations

I'll assume this is reference 56 alone. I'll look into resolving it. Kyteto (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one I noticed is fixed, but is that the only one? Please advise as to if this is completed or not. Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 122 needs pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I addressed the right one now? I just took one out near there. Kyteto (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations, and if so what information is included and how it is formatted

I've done my best with this, is it good enough right now? Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, still some issues. For example, you need to specify whether "Washington" refers to D.C. or the state. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the example. Kyteto (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 99-101: formatting

I'm guessing this is to do with the date. I've put all available date information in place where available for all references. If a citation's date day-month-year is known, it is included. If the day is missing, I cannot include the day as I don't know it, thus I am only able to go to month-year on those few instances. I can either invent a day to please this requirement, or remove the days on 40+ entries; neither seem to be particularly truthful/informative. Kyteto (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually you're missing retrieval dates and have some strange italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyteto was referring to adding meaningless retrieved dates for original print sources that are now avaiable online. Retrieved dates have been added anyway.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to understand if I am misinterpreting policy regarding rules, or I've simply made slips that for the life of me I am unable to spot for the 300 or so times I have viewed this article in the five months of refining work here. I need examples of where these slips are, so I can understand what I'm looking for. Because I'm just not seeing them. I'm not saying the errors aren't there, but I cannot fix what I cannot find, and the needle-in-a-haystack of 170 citations is not getting anywhere. I thank you for continuing to pay this article attention even now. Kyteto (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what Nikki's getting at: why are "David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Bethesda", "Army Command and General Staff Coll Fort Leavenworth", and Naval Postgraduate School Monterey italicised? Publications should generally be italicised, but those appear to be publishers (which should not). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it helps to know I'm looking to take away italics from items that shouldn't have them, over looking for items that should have them but don't; I think I have addressed this now; unless there was more depthes that I have missed. Kyteto (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language sources should be notated as such

Done (unless I accidentally missed something) Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak the language used in this source, so can you elaborate on what makes it a high-quality reliable source?

It is the website of the Museum that houses one of the Harriers. I would assume that the best source that the aircraft is at this museum would be their own website. It isn't a polished website, but as my ability to read German goes, I would say it is official. Kyteto (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It starts off: "The flight exhibit at Hermeskeil is a family business founded in 1973." - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure about that one. Would it be possible to replace it? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's acceptable if it's a museum's official website being used to cite that that museum has a plane? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, citation formatting could be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies above, more work needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Well written, some improvement thoughts below:

Hatnote - ~~'Models' is a US term, 'variants' would align with this strongly British subject.~~

Lead - A good summary of the article, ~~'flexible' and 'versatile' mean the same thing don't they? Perhaps replace with one better word.~~

Infobox image - ~~A bit dreary and right facing, inflight images are preferred (can link to the guideline if reqd).~~ There is another Commons category not linked 'Harrier 1'. Seems to be overlap in Commons for the Harrier but getting anything fixed over there is hard work!

Origins - ~~Hawker Aviation is a redirect and is linked twice, we normally leave redirects but this name appears to be wrong (hence the redirect). Why link turbofan to jet engine when we have a turbofan article?~~

Italics - Some designations are italicised (they are aircraft types so I believe they should not be), the tail numbers in aircraft display are treated as names and are usually italicised.

Wikilinks - I think a sprinkle more would help for lay readers, ~~who are Martin-Baker, what is a 'sortie', what is a transponder?~~

Production - Ski jump text seems to be in the wrong section. How many were built? An order for 60 is mentioned but there are no production figures given in the infobox or in the variants section.

Finding a good source for the production numbers; I haven't found one in searches for months. As for the placement of the Ski-jump info, it didn't really fit under RAF, and where it is leads nicely into the navy variants. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Mason - Hawker aircraft since 1920? It's listed in the bibliography. Orders and production numbers are given, I can add them to the article talk page if you don't have it. It's not straightforward as the numbers are scattered through the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that book unfortunantly, that was added by somebody else kindly helping out. If it is a lot of work, perhaps only some of the numbers should be used; I do not wish to impose upon you. Kyteto (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the numbers from Mason with the page range at the article talk page, would have thought that the number built would been a fundamental fact for an aircraft type article? Per WP:VERIFY they can be added and cited even if they are not absolutely correct. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Op history (RAF) - ~~Air field is one word. Grammar/plurals; Falklands conflict, a single threat is introduced but there are two given.~~

Aircraft on display - ~~Brooklands can be linked to Brooklands Museum as can Imperial War Museum North. The other museums should be red links (not a problem in a Featured Article).~~

External images link - ~~It's broken and according to the documentation should be removed anyway when other (internal) images exist. Seemed well out of place in the 'specs' section.~~

Design (overview) - Seems a tiny bit short (this is effectively the bit on the aircraft itself). Does it have flaps, does it have conventional controls? Having to take the wing off for an engine change is a major pain and is sure to be mentioned in sources.

Expanded with some of the negative criticisms.Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balance/NNPOV - Article is worded quite neutrally, leaning towards a glowing account (unavoidable because it was obviously a successful type). The engine change mentioned above would be a negative design feature. I believe the Harrier suffered a very poor accident rate in its earlier days (especially with the USMC?), there appears to be little mention of it apart from the word 'unforgiving'. I also believe that pilot selection was quite stringent in the RAF (noted in Mason's book) and possibly still was for the later variants (which have retired now I think).

Have seen the expansion on the engine change and flight safety record, might need to summarise the latter in the lead to reflect that paragraph (the lead could run to four paras if needed). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review Mostly good, one image with major problems, a few bits of information are missing, will detail those below. First though, a general comment; this page has, in my opinion, too many images. I'd remove File:Harrier GR3 233 OCU hovering 1984.JPEG and File:Dedalo(R01).jpg, and then move File:BELIZE 90 23.jpg to the right side of the page (same place in the prose, just swap the alignment in the thumb text). This would reduce visual clutter while sacrificing images that don't really add a great deal to the article (as the Dedalo is in the lead image and there are multiple RAF images in the section where the 1984 picture is). Now for the detail stuff:
- File:Dedalo(R01).jpg The one with the aforementioned "major problems". Translation I got was "Scanning a photo of my property." That's not particularly acceptable as a source, as it dosen't say who took the photo or where it was scanned from. On his userpage, it's in a section of scans of other peoples' work (the other ones I checked had full sourcing information). Per above and per this, I'd strongly suggest removing this from the article, and if the uploader can't be reached, removing it from Commons.

Done Kyteto (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- File:Hawker Siddeley XV-6A Kestrel USAF.jpg is missing a lot of information. The source isn't descriptive enough, and there's no date or author information.

I have added a url to its probable source, to help out. Kyteto (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- File:DN-SN-83-08324.JPEG's licensing is kinda sketchy, as it would appear that the photo wasn't actually taken by a US Army employee, it was taken by a McDonnell-Douglas employee. I added the National Archives tag to the desctiption, so that's probably the best place to check for clarification. As it stands now though, the PD Army tag makes me uncomfortable.

This one is difficult. I suppose I could email the National Archives for a brief on how it is allowed to be used, I'll take this under advicement as I wouldn't want to disturb them unnecessarily. Kyteto (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image has now been replaced by another user. Kyteto (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- File:Aircraft engine RR Pegasus cut-out RH.jpg has no date and curiously enough, no metadata (to draw the date from). Doesn't look like there's much we can do on this one.
The rest checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New images check out. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~for half of it~~ on prose per standard disclaimer, ~~down to where I stopped, Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier#Differences between versions,~~ having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been able to check the lower half of the article? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a copyediting break while I'm working on the WP:OPNORMANDY articles and a job application. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back from my break, finished up. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support On hold Support – covers all majors aspects of the Harrier, neutral, verifiable, well-written prose, illustrated by good images and follows MoS. No reason for otherwise. @Kyteto: and you thought A330 would make history! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - excellent article, however I have an issue with the "Skyhook" section. Either it's just me, or it is not explained very well - what was to be the exact means of launching and recovering the aircraft? And why on earth would the UK have sold arms to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War? Mark83 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Skyhook was the means of launching and landing aircraft, a giant hook grabbing the aircraft while it is hovering. The reference to the Russian Typhoon class is in the source material, it is because it is the world's largest submarine, and probably the only submarine platform capable of meaningfully using a Skyhook in theory. It wasn't to suggest it actually was going to be fitted to Soviet submarines. Kyteto (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note here that since the initial comment regarding Skyhook was made, the paragraph has been altered. Kyteto (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – any status on the current operations with the Royal Thai Navy? This might be mis-remembered fact, but I saw a publication which says the Thai Navy had retired the birds... Here it is "Thailand's operation of the Harrier has had its problems with the aircraft grounded in mid-1997 (and operation of the carrier curtailed) due to a chronic lack of funds". The quote's from Stewart Wilson's book BAe/McDonnnell Douglas Harrier. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being grounded isn't necessarily the same as being retired; the Harriers were underfinanced and thus many were unservicable without appropriate spare parts. From my reading into Thailand's usage of them, the Harriers are still active, just not very often flown and only a few at any one time. I'll look up the issue again later today, see if there is anything more I can discover and add. Kyteto (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checked, the grounding is already mentioned in the text, it was not a retirement however. There is continued operation after that, which is included. I did not find anything of substance to add in my search. Kyteto (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to do this, but I think there are some information missing regarding the twin-seat trainer version of the Harrier. There are at least six first-generation twin-seat Harriers mentioned in the Wilson book, including the T.2/4/6/8/10/60 and TAV-8A. I know it's mentioned under "Variants" already, but I suggest writing a brief summary about the versions under "Differences between versions". Any comments? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little too specific for my liking, but the detail is added. Kyteto (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone done sourcing checks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ, I see you went through the article almost sentence by sentence at the first ACR; did you get a sense of whether the text abuses the sources? - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not those that I can access, though I wan't looking for close paraphrasing. I'm a little busy right now (online, but dealing with real life, and peeking at my watchlist occasionally), but I'll go through again later. Although I hate the tedium of spot-checking, I do know the text well so it hopefully won't take me too long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Earwig gives no violations on this page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecking, with apologies for the delay. I checked a dozen online sources, and found two issues. All other sources verified the information they're citing and I found no plagiarism or close paraphrasing in any of the 11 sources I could access. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. 53 doesn't seem to work for me—it just loads a plain white page.

53, the Flight article, appears to load here. It is a bit of a fiddly site that Flight Global operate, as PDF embedded files often have issues being displayed on some machines, depending on the browser/OS/Adobe software used; a pain actually. Can anybodsy else confirm it's working from their position? Kyteto (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. 89, this article, does not appear to contain anything relevant to the sentence preceding it. It's one of two sources at then of that sentence, but I don't have access to the other.

I've accidentally linked the second page, rather than the first of that article. I have replaced the link to the first page now. It mentions the ground attack and troop support roles for the Harrier in the field as well. Kyteto (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any last minute observations and reflections for me to make I have the weekend to address the article and do work on it, but I don't currently have an objectives or work requests to do upon it; so if there is a flaw, please note it here and I'll get on it. Kyteto (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've stumbled this page, which has a free diagram of a skyhook in action. I just think it's a more interesting picture than the one which has the caption "An RAF Harrier GR.3 in Belize, 1990". Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That image isn't free, I recognise the diagram, and it appears to have been lifted out of a book. A month ago I made a call to an able artist to make a Skyhook Diagram, but that is only a request at best. Kyteto (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the "Operators" section has flags for only some countries; why is that? In any case, is the use of the flags consistent with WP:MOSICON? Ucucha (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of not unnecessarily delaying an old FAC, I just went through and made it consistent. I removed the flags, since they should obviously be used for all countries or none, and none is less effort! If anyone wants to add them to all countries, be my guest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ucucha (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

"The Harrier received criticism for having a high accident rate and for a time-consuming maintenance process."
This sentence seems particularly disruptive to the reading experience where it stands (and the way it is phrased) now.

"Similar V/STOL operational aircraft include the contemporary Soviet Yakovlev Yak-38 as well as one variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which is currently under development."
This item (the Yak-38) is not described in the main article text (of which the lede is supposed be a summary).

P.1154

"The P.1154 won the competition to meet the requirement despite several rival bids from other aircraft manufacturers such as Dassault Aviation."
This does not seem right to me. I would presume the goal of such competitions was to secure a government contract (meeting the requirements is the requisite of the goal). Furthermore, "rival bids" is perfectly natural in such a competition and not contradictory in any way.
Politics came into it a great deal. When the French wanted to buy a 'NATO' plane, a sceptic could reason that they only wanted to use their participation and influence as leverage to see the French design come up top-trumps regardless of merit. Tactics like worksharing and promises of lucritive contracts to other nations were made to swing their 'wholley impartial' judgement to their way of thiking, and help make sure the 'right' decision was made. It wasn't a very equal or fair contest, the rival projects were being very hotly pressed at the highest levels of political office; a recognition of the competition is certainly very warrented. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much describes many contract tenders; there is nothing "contradictory" about awarding the contract to the P.1154 in the face of underhand tactics (one could not be sure if the P.1154's team did not adopt certain tactics as well). "The P.1154 won the competition to meet the requirement, which also had intense bids from rival aircraft manufacturers such as Dassault Aviation." would in my view be a better summation of the situation. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The project was cancelled in 1965 after the French government withdrew following the selection of the P.1154 over the Dassault Mirage IIIV."
This sentence reads very funny to me. My interpretation is "NATO cancelled the project after the French government selected the P.1154 over the Mirage and withdrew from the project". Is this the case?
The French government would not, and did not, select the P.1154. They wanted the French plane, the Mirage, to get the contract, the French plane losing was unacceptable. NATO representatives selected the P.1154 as the aircraft were better prospects and thus their favour for development, so the French officials chose to walk away as they didn't get their way. The decrease in orders kind of destroyed the merits of a NATO multi-nation collaboration with one of the major customers walking out, so it fell apart. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence to me was quite ambiguous (and thus opposite of what you said). Reading the source, it states "After much lobbying and jockeying for position, the P1154 was declared the 'technical winner' of the NBMR3 competition, which proved unacceptable to the French who decided to do their own thing." I think a much clearer sentence about this would be "The French government did not accept the decision and chose to produce their own VTOL aircraft. The NATO VTOL project was cancelled in 1965 after the French withdrawal." Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

"... four vectorable nozzles for directing the thrust generated:"
Supposedly, this encylopaedia project avoids technical jargon or explains it on first use. I doubt the common layman would understand the characteristic "vectorable".
The first two incidents of 'Vectoring', first in the lead and the second in Origin are linked. I don't know of a good word to substitute vectoring other than 'thing that changes direction of heated air'. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it might be best to simply replace all instances (only two) of "vectorable" with "rotating",[2] "swiveling",[3] or "vectoring,[4] which would lessen the need to decipher a term not commonly used. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... incorporating an Inertial navigation system, ..."
Why is "Inertial" capitalised?

~~"... though Nordeen notes that several conventional single-engine strike aircraft like the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and LTV A-7 Corsair II actually had worse accident rates."~~
"Actually" is unnecessary: undue and possibly biased.
Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... on any effective V/STOL aircraft."
What does "effective" add here, why is it used at all?
Perhaps because it was possible to design a V/STOL aircraft that was easy to maintain, but it would have so severely compromised the plane's performance it'd have joined the dozens of aborted prototypes developed by the superpowers and a few other nations trying to make a breakthough in VSTOL tech. There were so many different designs, but all proved to be appaullingly bad in operation to the point where you'd be better off in a Spitfire or standing on the ground with a pea shooter. Designing a V/STOL aicraft proved to be easy; getting one that was worth its salt and could do anything practical, that's a complicated kettle of fish that is so rarely got right there's practically nothing that compares to the Harrier even now. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does not matter if it was effective or not, does it? I do not think ineffective V/STOL were produced. The more important question here about this inclusion of Buland's opinion is: were there any other V/STOLs that were easier to maintain than the Harrier? Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engine

"The engine is equipped for water injection to increase thrust and take-off performance in hot and high altitude conditions;"
This seems extraordinary to me: injecting water into hot engine chambers to improve thrust? I think this requires a bit of (brief) explanation.
I shall look into what I can add; but I've previously had huge problems trying to get reliable information on the water injection system. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"... powered by the Pegasus 6 engine which was replaced by the more powerful Pegasus 11 version ..."~~
"Version" seems redundant.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"... spent a £3-million annual budget to investigate and develop engine improvements."~~
I think "develop" would cover investigation as well.
Done. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Several variants have been released which improved on the original engine; the Pegasus 11–61 (Mk 107) is the latest and most powerful version of the engine providing 23,800 lbf (106 kN)."~~
Suggestion: "The latest variant is the Pegasus 11–61 (Mk 107), which provides 23,800 lbf (106 kN) of thrust, more than any previous engine."
Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, "Several variants have been released which improved on the original engine" is not removed; the gist of it is basically a repetition of the preceding sentence: "to develop engine improvements." Reading it again, I suggest rephrasing the entire "Several variants have been released which improved on the original engine; the latest variant is the ..." to "Several variants have been released; the latest is the ..." (I boldly implemented this). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controls and handling

"It has been viewed as a significant design success that the cockpit only required the addition of a single lever over that of a conventional aircraft."
Viewed by who? So how many levers does a conventional aircraft have? Which conventional aircraft has vectorable nozzles?
1. A collection of RAF Senior Officers who wrote the source. 2. I don't know, I'd only noting what the source from men far greater and far more knowledgeable than I am in the field have noted. 3. I don't know of any, I'm sorry that I'm too stupid to answer your last two questions. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During the develop of various failed VTOL aircraft, they were monumentally impossible to control, the control systems were designed for people with two heads and five arms to be operated effectively, to put it bluntly. That somebody had eventually managed to create an VTOL aircraft that didn't make the controls into an unworkable pig's breakfast (thus defeating the point, a plane you or anybody else cannot practically pilot is worthless) was viewed as a resounding breakthough. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not berate yourself; an article at this state could not be written by someone stupid. The issue here is that we are trying to present a (hopefully) clear view of the subject to the readers. Introducing a piece of information that evokes more questions than answers would be contrary to that aim.

To clarify, this phrase "the cockpit only required the addition of a single lever over that of a conventional aircraft" suggests that conventional aircraft also have vectorable nozzles, by virtue of insinuating that the Harrier used only one lever whereas conventional aircraft would require several.

The source reads, "To a pilot; this was the crowning success of the P1127 design — the fact that it needed only one additional lever in the cockpit."; it does not compare or mention conventional aircraft. After reading, I suggest "It is viewed by senior RAF officers as a significant design success that this feature was controlled through a single lever added in the cockpit." Would this be agreeable? Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The nozzles point rearwards with the lever in the forward position, for horizontal flight; the nozzles point increasingly downwards as the lever is pulled back, for short or vertical take-off and landing."
This reads awkwardly to me, I suggest: "For horizontal flight, the nozzles are directed rearwards by shifting the lever to the forward position; for short or vertical take-offs and landings, the lever is pulled back to point the nozzles downwards."
Switched.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The Harrier has two control elements that fixed-wing aircraft do not usually have:"~~
Awkward, suggest: "The Harrier has two control elements not found in most fixed-wing aircraft:"
Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think it best to explain briefly what the RCS would do for this aeroplane.

~~"Wind direction in reference to the aircraft is crucial during VTOL manoeuvres."~~
I think "The wind direction is a critical factor in VTOL manoeuvres." is much more concise.
Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One question seems unanswered: How high can a Harrier hover (at 90° vector angle)? Is there no reliable source that covers this?
Not one that I found. It would depend on how heavy the Harrier was, and what grade engine it had I guess. Normally vertical flight wouldn't be used unless you were low and coming into land. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"... called vectoring in forward flight, or "VIFFing". This was a dog-fighting tactic, ..."~~
VIFFing is no longer used by Harrier pilots in dog-fights ("was")?
Suppose it should be 'is', it can be a tactic today, if anybody still cared to train up in them for that. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between versions

"Changes included the removal of all magnesium components ..."
What were these "magnesium components"? They are not mentioned anywhere else (more importantly earlier) in the article.
Magnesium alloys today are known for being lightweight, back in a world without composite materials and a dozen other advanced material engineering breakthroughs it was exceedingly brilliant. However, Magnesium is a pain in the butt due to it reacting with pretty much anything, including oxygen in the air: Sea Water was not good. Magnesium is a very, very common component in Aerospace construction, potentially hundreds or even thousands of components could have made use of it. But for the Harrier to be suitable for being out at sea without being FUBARed (and left inoperable by doing nothing more than being there for anything more than a few moments), the Magnesium had to go. Its the sort of thing you wouldn't strip out of an aircraft design unless it was pretty much essential to do so, it'd be like wiring up a city without the use of copper cabling: It can be done, it just isn't something you'd want to resort to unnecessarily. More information is available on the P.1127 article, and the source document is available online as well (highly worth a look if you're interested). It doesn't go into the details of components x and y being made of it though. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in my view is that "magnesium components" are not given a suitable context (the reader would wonder why remove them). As you explained (and the properties of the metal and aeronautical purposes of its use I am aware of), a short simple cited add-on ("... the removal of all magnesium components, which degraded quickly at sea, ...") or such would help. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"... in order to aid quick turn-around ..."~~
"In order to" can be cut to simply "to".
Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The RAF had their GR.1 aircraft upgraded to an improved standard, ..."~~
Reads a bit funny since "upgrade" would imply "improvements" ("[improved] to an improved standard"). Why not "The RAF upgraded their GR.1 aircraft to the GR.3 standard, which featured ... and Pegasus Mk 103."?
DoneKyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The USMC also upgraded their AV-8As to the AV-8C configuration;"~~
As implied by "also", what other aircraft did the USMC upgrade?
Done; this came about because I had originally written "The RAF upgraded their Harriers to the GR.3, and the USMC also upgraded their Harriers", if that makes any more sense.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Air Force

"Two further squadrons were established at RAF Wildenrath as part of RAF Germany in 1970, while a fourth formed at Wildenrath in 1972. In 1977, the German-based Harrier force was moved forwards to RAF Gütersloh, closer to the prospective front line in the event of an outbreak of a European war, with one of the squadrons being disbanded and its aircraft being distributed between the other two."
Quite confusing (RAF this, RAF that, xxth squadron, etc). I propose; "Two Harrier squadrons were established in 1970 at RAF's air base in Wildenrath to be part of its air force in Germany; another squadron was formed there two years later. In 1977, these three squadrons were moved forward to the air base at Gütersloh, closer to the prospective front line in the event of an outbreak of a European war. One of the squadrons was disbanded and its aircraft distributed between the other two."
Implimented.Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"British forces had been stationed in Belize for several years due to tensions over a Guatemalan claim to Belizean territory, and were finally withdrawn in 1993."~~
This sentence is skimpy of necessary details (why should Britain defend Belize?), suggestion: "Harriers were also deployed to bases in Norway and Belize, a former British colony. ... British forces had been stationed in Belize for several years due to tensions over a Guatemalan claim to Belizean territory; the forces were withdrawn in 1993, two years after Guatemala recognized the independence of Belize."
A very good call, changed. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A defining combat experience for the Harrier was the Falklands War in 1982, in which 10 Harrier GR.3s of No. 1 Squadron operated from the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes."
Is the "defining combat experience" the Falklands War or the operation of 10 GR.3s from Hermes?
I suppose it can be both. There were many people sceptical that a small carrier air wing of Harriers was worth anything more than a packet of cigarettes, the fact they were the backbone of a carrier force and managed to hold their own is significant; it signlehandedly validated the 'Harrier-carrier' concept and since then three nations have purchased Harriers primarily for that purpose, which'd have been doubtful to happen if operations onboard the Hermes had proved to suck beyond all belief. Dozens of nations took note of the Harrier's performance, from Japan to India, Italy to Greece, even Russia. They were all eager to know if a V/STOL carrier could do anything in real war or if it was just a useless 'paper tiger' for penny-pinching, and considered purchases on the back of that outcome. Both were pretty, pretty big. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to be clear on which (Wars or operation) is the defining experience as cited to the source. The War would mean the entire combat operations (Sea Harriers and GR.3), whereas operating from the Hermes would pertain only to operating GR.3 on the ship. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Following the Falklands war, a new technique of enabling smaller ships to operate Harriers was explored, known as Skyhook."~~
Why is "Skyhook" in italics? Suggestion: "Following the Falklands war, the British navy explored a new technique (Skyhook) to operate Harriers on smaller ships."

United States Marine Corps

~~"The United States Marine Corps began showing a significant interest in the Harrier, around the same time the first RAF Harrier squadron was established in 1969, ..."~~
Aside from a repetition of the aircraft name, why is there a comma after "Harrier"? Suggestion: "The United States Marine Corps began showing a significant interest in the aircraft around the time the first RAF Harrier squadron was established in 1969, ..."
DoneKyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The AV-8A entered service with the Marine Corps in 1971 and attack squadrons converted to the Harrier."~~
"The AV-8A entered service with the Marine Corps in 1971, replacing the planes in the marines' attack squadrons."
Done with a substitution, I replaced 'plane' with 'aircraft', some editors can get naff-ed off with the usage of plane so I've noticed. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Supplies, including armaments, were to be regularly ferried by Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallions from the main base to the dispersed forward bases."
This does not seem relevant to the Harrier and possibly unnecessary for establishing the context of the Marines concept of forward operations.
Well, the supply situation of the forward basis was/is angrily contested to these days, some military hotheads would state they were utterly useless with such short supplies of fuel and ammunition on hand immediately; the fact that an extensive air logistics setup was implimented and tested over and over again to the point of being fully prepared to keep up with real world demands of the FOBs is potentially relevant, it demonstrates how the Harriers would have been kept running missions and striking enemies forces even though the standing strength of the FOB is commonly mocked. The Super Stallion resupplies were an essential operational detail to how they would have been able to function. It can go on your insistance, I will not argue against you, I only wish to convey a reason why I believe it could be important. I'll await your confirmation of intent. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The feasibility of the forward base system should not be in details here, but in the system's article. Putting myself in a layman's shoes, I felt that this detail was superfluous (I would have been pretty much happy simply knowing that the planned SOP for Harrier deployment was from forward bases). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other customers

"The Spanish Navy operated the AV-8S Matador from their aircraft carrier Dédalo (formerly the USS Cabot), with the Harriers providing both air defence and strike capabilities for the Spanish fleet starting in 1976."
Noun plus gerund construct: "Since 1976, the Spanish Navy operated the AV-8S Matador from their aircraft carrier Dédalo (formerly the USS Cabot); the aircraft provide both air defence and strike capabilities for the Spanish fleet."
Tuned in accordance. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I tuned it further (the second clause did not seem correct). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Of these only India became a customer, with the Sea Harrier."~~
I doubt India does business with Sea Harrier: "Of these only India became a customer, buying the Sea Harrier."
Alright, it is changed. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Spain sold seven single-seat and two two-seat Harriers to Thailand in 1998."~~
Repetition of "two": "Spain sold seven single-seat and two double-seater Harriers to Thailand in 1998."
I've made a change to twin seat, but no doubt someone will come along and criticise that on every other mention in the article (and most source material) it is expressed as 'two seat' and putting it as 'twin seat' on a one-off basis is "confusing" or some such stuff. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation; but the change is made. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Thailand considered acquiring ex-Royal Navy Sea Harriers around 2003, more suitable for maritime operations and better equipped for air defence, to replace their AV-8S Harriers, ..."~~
I suggest "Around 2003, Thailand considered ... Navy Sea Harriers, which were more ...", which would place the description closer to the subject.
Improvement implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft on display

I do not see any encyclopaedic purpose in this section.
I see it as questionably encyclopedic as well, WP:Aircraft recently had a discussion on this, one of the listed defences is the WP:Air/PC guideline. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe any notable displays could be worked into prose, which tends to work much better than a list. Regardless, the discussion pointed also shows that the proponents of this section believes it should be restricted to a select few and which are notable. The current list (numbering 17) is too indiscriminate. I suggest we prune this down to either one display per country or one display per model (the most notable locations of the displays such as that at the Imperial War Museum would be the preference). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested possibilities at Talk:Hawker Siddeley Harrier#Trimming the Aircraft on display list. Jappalang (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]