Talk:Sea Eagle (missile)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparable missiles
editQuote of Dave1185 "we don't do comparison here on Wikipedia lest we risk becoming a bazaar for arms dealer to compare their goods :)"
I agree that wikipedia should NOT be a barter-place for haggling arms-manufacturers, however I do feel that linking to weapons of similar generations/capabilities does benefit the reader in search of information, especially the ones who is not an expert. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Constructive criticism: This article contains way too much information. No missile (many superior to this particular entry), contain as many words! Who cares about the minutia concerning the gestation of this particular missile? It is a very long and boring article. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.157.255.184 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Sea Eagle Missile Status
editOk - the Operators section lists nations and aircraft known to be capable to carry the missile. For the UK all aircraft listed are marked as retired aircraft.So what is the missile status with the UK MoD? Same Comment to Saudi Arabia. Users/ status of missile in previous sections fails to mention this. Is the UK or Saudi Arabia making integration efforts for missile to go onto newer Aircraft. Wfoj3 (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)