Talk:High Virgo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The High Virgo missile, also" later in the sentence the definition is introduced.

 Done

• Was Convair a manufacturer of the missile as well?

Yes - Lockheed built the missile itself, while Convair constructed the special pylon that mounted the missile to the B-58; they were officially co-contractors on the project.

• Place ALBM after "air-launched ballistic missile"

 Done

• First sentence of "Design and development" is too long, and requires a split.

 Done

• Pipe link "strategic weapons" with "Weapon of mass destruction"

 Done

• Not sure, but shouldn't Lockheed Aircraft be replaced with the ungainly "Lockheed Missiles, Space, and Electronics Systems Group"?

No; at the time, it was simply "Lockheed Corporation" - I've changed the text to that.

• "supersonic medium bomber" Medium-range?

No, it was a medium bomber in payload. I'll wikilink that.

• Link research-and-development

 Done

• Wikify "cruise missile"

 Done

• utilized vs utilising I suggest using use

Went with the alternative "equipped".

• "200 miles" Km measurement?

 Done

• what does "ASAT" stand for? "Anti-satellite ..."?

Yes - I've clarified that.

• Could the table in "Launch history" be merged into "Operation history"?

Not practically; it's kind of a supplement to the article, a la Bold Orion and other articles.

But wouldn't operational history include launches? I mean, if the thing didn't fly, then it wasn't considered operational. I'm trying to keep things "tight". Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I can see your point, but I prefer to keep them seperate, if it's not a big deal. I may modify the table some though for better appearance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• References for specifications?

 Done, also refined some of the specs

• Why did the missile fall out of favour?

It didn't; it was intended all along as strictly a R&D project. I've added a sentence at the end to clarify that.

Hopefully that clears things up? Thanks for the review! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)