Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

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 promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II edit

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prior nomination here and Prior nomination here

This is the third A-class review after the first two that happened in quick succession in 2011. I have lately taken a look at the issues raised during these two nominations, and have tried to addressed them all – the lead has been rewritten and clarifications have been added to explain military jargons. I believe the article just about meets all the MHACR criteria; all comments are welcomed --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- One dab link [1]:
- B61
- External links check reveals a couple of dead links [2]:
  - Italy Pressuring U.S., Lockheed Over JSF Work (info) [aviationweek.com]
    - Removed URL. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - AV-8B Harrier II Plus (info) [boeing.com]
- Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
- Images are all either PD / licensed and seem appropriate as far as I can see.
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
- A few duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
  - Hawker Siddeley Harrier
  - Rolls-Royce Pegasus
  - leading-edge root extension
  - hardpoints
  - Operation Desert Storm
  - LITENING II targeting pod
  - USS Kearsarge
  - Douglas A-4 Skyhawk
  - Naval Air Systems Command
  - no-fly zone
  - Alenia Aeronautica
  - MCAS Cherry Point
  - AIM-120 AMRAAMs
  - 2011 military intervention in Libya
  - F/A-18 Hornet
  - hardpoint
    - Since this is a long article, I thought it'd be good for the reader to have more than one link to the same page. I've removed all the links, however, except for, Hawker Jump Jet (it serves two purposes) and LITENING II targetting pod (LITENING II and LITENING are talked about in the same article). --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Abbrev needs to be correctly introduced here: "Capable of vertical or short takeoff and landing, the aircraft was designed in the 1980s as an Anglo-American development of the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, the first operational V/STOL aircraft." Consider instead: "Capable of vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL), the aircraft was designed in the 1980s as an Anglo-American development of the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, the first operational V/STOL aircraft."
- "The AV-8A, the American designation for the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, in STOL..." abbreviation needs to be introduced here (abbrevs used in the lead don't count).
- Missing word here perhaps: "The Advanced Harrier was intended to replace original RAF and USMC Harriers...", consider instead: "The Advanced Harrier was intended to replace the original RAF and USMC Harriers..."
- A bit informal here: " In 1984, money for eight AV-8Bs was diverted...", consider instead: " In 1984, funding for eight AV-8Bs was diverted..."
- Punctuation here seems a little complicated: "The Defense Acquisition Board, on 11 March 1994, approved the program, which initially involved 70 aircraft, with four converted in financial year 1994." Perhaps consider more simply: On 11 March 1994, the Defense Acquisition Board approved the program, which initially involved 70 aircraft, with four converted in financial year 1994."
- Redundancy here: "...was delivered to Spain in December 2003, ending the Harrier production line." (you already mentioned the end of the production line in the para above). Suggest removing second instance.
- Contradictory: "The Marines Corps Harrier fleet is to remain operational until 2027..." previously you said 2030.
  - This one is still outstanding. Are you pls able to respond to this? Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "unlike earlier ejection seats that required the aircraft to move forward at a particular height for them to work." Is there a citation available for this?
  - No. It says it all in the name really. There's a Flight International article that says. "Capability is zero-zero and the seat has been designed to operate over the entire flight envelope of the TSR.2." From here I can infer that the operating envelope of ejection seats was previously more limited than the updated zero-zero ejection seats. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure this is really sufficient. It will need a reference or may need to be removed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The AV-8B cockpit was also used for the early trialling of Direct Voice Input (DVI), which allows the pilot to use voice commands to issue instructions to the aircraft, using a system developed by Smiths Aerospace." Remove wikilink here to Smiths Aerospace and wikilink earlier at first use.
  - Smiths Aerospace used to belong to Smiths Industries until it was sold to General Electric. I've linked both. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tense here: "The carrier, which replaces the World War II-era Dédalo...", consider instead: "The carrier, which replaced the World War II-era Dédalo..."
- "...on the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) helicopter carrier Andrea Doria...", wikilink Andrea Doria.
- "...worked alongside Italian Eurofighters and the aircraft...", perhaps wikilink Eurofighter.
- "Italian Air Force Tornados and AMX fighter bombers..." perhaps wikilink Tornado and AMX here.
- Some of the titles of references in the bibliography are incorrectly presented and need to use title case.
- Mainly prose and some technical issues which should be easily fixed, otherwise looking in fairly good shape. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have addressed all of your concerns, unless stated otherwise. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking good so far, pls see my cmts above re the outstanding points. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've removed the unsourced claim and corrected the year. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I reworded this further. On second thought it seemed repetitive to mention the retirement twice in the same paragraph. Pls revert if you disagree. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm fine with the changes. Thank you for the support. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments:~~
- the citation style seems a little inconsistent: for instance # 52 has the full bibliographic details instead of a short citation (compare it to 56 which is also a Flight International article). Same for # 38 and possibly others;
- in the Bibliography, capitalisation: "The Iraq War: strategy, tactics, and military lessons" --> " The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons"
- as above: "NATO air power" --> "NATO Air Power";
- "The Naval Institute guide to the ships and aircraft of the U.S. fleet" --> "The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet"
- in the Bibliography, can ISSNs be found for Popular Science and Flight International? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've addressed everything, and added issue numbers, volume numbers, locations and publishers to the Flight International sources. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 2 October 2013 (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.