Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede

• "It has a redesigned fuselage, a new wing, an elevated cockpit, along with a host of structural and aerodynamic refinements." - you're missing a word there, as "along" isn't a conjunction.
• "The number of hardpoints was increased to six (eight in the BAe Harrier II)" - that is the first time you mentioned the BAe Harrier II. What is that, and why is it relegated to being in parenthesis?
• "Later upgrades, which resulted in the AV-8B(NA) and AV-8B Harrier II Plus, saw the addition of radars and night-attack capability" - I would recommend a different word than "saw". Consider "included"?
• "British Aerospace joined the improved Harrier project in the early 1980s, and it has been managed by Boeing and BAE Systems since the 1990s." - British Aerospace was managed by Boeing and BAE systems? Or was the project managed? Passive voice can make the context confusing.
• "USMC Harriers part-took in the Gulf War, were they play an integral part in the ground campaign, which led U.S. Army General Norman Schwarzkopf to name the Harrier as one of the seven most important weapons during the war." - several things are wrong there. Do you mean "partook"? "where"? "played"? I suggest you rewrite that sentence and perhaps even split it up.
• " Flying from assault ships, AV-8Bs again played a role in Iraq as part of Second Gulf War in 2003 and the ongoing Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya. " - why does the "assault ship" part matter? And the wording could be better. Until I got to the final word of the sentence, I thought Odyssey Dawn was in Iraq too.

Quick note, you're inconsistent how you address the United States. Sometimes you use U.S. and others you use US.
Also, I see "payload" several times but I never see it linked or explained. What is that?

• Linked to Payload (air and space craft). Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Development

• When you say U.S. Marine Corps, you should include (USMC) afterward. I was confused the first time I saw the acronym and didn't see an explanation.
• "The plan for Harrier II development was authorized by the Defense Department in 1976." - this is unsourced.
• "after failed efforts by the DoD and U.S. Navy were made to terminate the program during 1978–1980" - the writing is a bit clunky. Try avoiding the passive voice to emphasize what actually happened.
• Why is the first section called "Origins and requirement"? I don't see much about requirement, just the history really.
• "the second followed on 19 February 1979, but crashed in November due to engine flameout" - so was that 2nd one tested for nine months straight? I don't get the crash part
• (in Further developments) - "rolled of the St. Louis production line in June 1987." - do you mean "off"? "rolled out of"? I think the "rolled" is rather vernacular and should be avoided.

• It's a fairly common term. Rolled off means when an aircraft is complete and rolled out of the production plant. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I know, I just felt it was vernacular. No biggie. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• You don't need to link "Memorandum of Understanding" twice in the same section.

Design

• You should link subsonic (or at least explain it)
• "It retains the basis layout of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier" - do you mean basic?
• "The aircraft is powered by a single Rolls-Royce Pegasus turbofan engine whose two intakes and four synchronized vectorable nozzles (two cold forward, two hot aft) are located very close to the turbine, where most fixed-wing aircraft have their engine nozzles at the back" - that's a bit of a run-on and confusing
• "Made of carbon-fibre, the wing is thicker, has a bigger aspect ratio, reduced swept and an area of 230 square feet (21.40 m2)." - I get everything but "reduced swept"...

• The sweep of the wing was reduced, meaning it's straighter, but by no means a straight wing. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could you explain that in the article then? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• He provided a link to Swept wing already. Wing sweep is very common in aviation is not appropriate to explain it further in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oops, I missed that, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "; when used in concert with leading-edge root extension (LERX), allows a 6,700-pound (3,035 kg) increase in payload after a 1,000 ft (300 m) ground roll" - that isn't a complete sentence. Using a semicolon means the latter thought should be able to be its own sentence, but there is no subject
• "The Harrier II retains the bicycle undercarriage layout of the first-generation Harriers" - bicycle...?
• "The engine intakes are bigger." - kind of a dumpy sentence on its own
• "forward looking infrared (FLIR) camera (NAVFLIR) equipment " - are both acronyms needed?
• I also notice that much of the "Upgrades" section alternates between past and present tense. At the very least, this being present tense confuses me. "The engine of the AV-8B is improved for the new development"

Operational history

• What are sorties?
• "was blooded" - I've never heard that term before.
• "Came 28 April the 24th MEU was relieved by the 26th MEU, which was based on USS Kearsarge" - I sort of get that, but I'm not a fan of the "Came 28 April".
• "During the initial action, dozens of AB-8Bs were deployed, 60 were deployed on ships such as the USS Bonhomme Richard and USS Bataan" - that's not a complete sentence.
  • It's still pretty weak. Let me point out... "dozens of AB-8Bs were deployed–60 were deployed on ships". It seems kinda redundant to say the dozens when you have an actual number. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• "85% aircraft availability" - what does that mean?
• "The limited amount of time that each aircraft could remain on station, around 15–20 minutes, led to some calls from within the USMC for AC-130 gunships to be procured to provide aircraft able to loiter for 6 hours and with a heavier CAS capability than the AV-8B" - it sounds a bit informal and confusing
  • The "could be able" could probably be tweaked, but better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• "AV-8Bs were later used in combination with artillery to provide ground forces constant fire support during heavy fighting in the later months of 2004 around the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, the urban environment required extreme standards of precision for strikes to be conducted" - the last portion doesn't work grammatically (since that is a complete sentence).
  • Grammatically correct now, but it's pretty long. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• "From 20 March 2011" - to when?
• "The carrier, which replaces the Dédalo, has a 12° ski-jump" - what does skiing have to do with anything?

• Ha, a ski-jump here is a device which allows an aircraft to takeoff at a lower speed. See File:FRS.1 ski-jump take-off HMS Invincible.JPEG.

• I got it now :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The first unit to originally planned to operate the aircraft was the 8a Escuadrilla." - the grammar is rather poor here
• "although F/A-18s and support aircraft were sent to participate in the conflict" - that isn't a complete thought
• Is there any updates newer than 2007 for the replacement?

• Not that I know of. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, could you look? It's four years after that now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The latest mention I could find was a publication in 2010. I suspect Spain is still reviewing the F-35B, because I couldn't find anything else apart from the 2010 publication. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• "an Marina Militare" - shouldn't it be "a Marina", or due to the Italian is that correct?
• "Existing aircraft, meanwhile, was being updated to allow the carriage of AIM-120 AMRAAMs and JDAM precision-guided bombs" - why the present tense ("being updated")?

Variants

• The first three are unsourced

• I've got a problem with "AV-8B Harrier II". Many books mixed it and the "AV-8B Harrier II Night Attack" together, so I don't know any sources which has a specific figure for the original AV-8B. To compound the matter, there are remanufactures, so I have problems identify which ones are are the AV-8B, AB-8B Night Attack and AV-8B Plus. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you got a source now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Operators

• Is there anything newer than December 2010?

• I have no reliable sources newer than December 2010. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• That is understandable. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifications

• Could you get a link for "Powerplant"? All I have in my mind is a nuclear power plant powering the thing

• Sorry, I don't think I can. It's a template. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"}

• Could you edit the template than and add a link for Powerplant? It's still really out of place. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• What is the max speed in the air?

• Couldn't find any sources which could satisfy your demand, so I changed the speed to Mach 1.0, according to Boeing. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Combat radius and Ferry range need regular mile conversion
  • Why is mile first sometimes and km first other times? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

• "The Harrier's unique characteristics have led to it being featured in a number of films and video games." - that's unsourced. You only mention the Pepsi bit... any way to expand?

That's it. I'll put the GAN on hold for now so you can get this laundry list of stuff to do :) Good luck! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fnlayson and I have finished addressing your reviews, except for those I have raised comments about. I'm standing by for further actions. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I struck everything that was finished. I added some replies, but look out for the ones not slashed. Those still need attention (but they should be fairly minor). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Great work on all of this. My only problem now is the pop culture section. The first part is unsourced. IMO, it should be emphasized on the court case, which has an article, instead of being structured as a pop culture section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)