Talk:Hawker Siddeley P.1154/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Sp33dyphil in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Isn't this a bit redundant? while the RAF continued development of the P.1127(RAF) project which would lead to the successful Harrier family You have a mix of American and British English, standardize on the latter since it was a British project.
- A. Prose quality:
- I removed project. Is that redundant? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is the formal designation P.1154(RAF), with no space between them? It reads very oddly to me. Perhaps you could reword this as "the RAF version" or some such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the space between P.1127 and (RAF), and yes, I believe that's the official desig. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- The info on Harrier.org.uk matches the info in my books, although the website is more detailed. Also, it's the only source of specifications for the P.1154 – the books talk more about the politics. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- There are specs for both the single-engined RAF version and the twin-Spey RN version in Francis Mason's The British Fighter since 1912, although they do not match the ones quoted in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The info on Harrier.org.uk matches the info in my books, although the website is more detailed. Also, it's the only source of specifications for the P.1154 – the books talk more about the politics. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Harrier.org.uk needs to be replaced, Buttler at least has partial data for the RN version unless Nigel is willing to transcribe Mason's data for us.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've added the RAF data from Mason - could really do with more. Has anyone seen Project Cancelled by Derek Wood? It may have some more details.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wood only has performance specs for the RAF variant. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've added the RAF data from Mason - could really do with more. Has anyone seen Project Cancelled by Derek Wood? It may have some more details.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: