Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon/1

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Many sentences/paragraphs tagged for improvement, while numerous statistics are not cited, failing GA criterion 2b, along with concerns over stability (see recent edit-warring). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a few cn tags, a failed verification tag, and cites many sources flagged up as unrealible (most natable F-16.net). I think the aircrafts on display section is trivia, and removing that may bring the article closer to GA, but some more work is needed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually comment on GA reassessments, but I'll chime in to say that "Aircraft on display" or "Surviving aircraft" are a standard section on aircraft articles, especially for military aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually agree ZLEA, but a section containing 83 aircraft (1.8% of all of these planes built) seems a bit unnecessary. And this is a plane which is still being not only flown, but built. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What type of sourcing can be used for those sections? At the moment, it seems to be primarily sourced to F-16.net, which shows up as red in my source-checking script (generally unreliable). To note here User:Mark83 has indicated at talk that they may work on the article :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have said I may pitch in, but I am not bothered about this section to be honest. I agree it feels a bit like trivia. ZLEA is right that it’s a standard section, but if user(s) have strong feelings about maintaining this section then they need to work on verifability. Failing that, let’s remove it. Mark83 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no opposition makes itself known, I'll remove the sectionin a couple of days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed by buidhe.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.