Talk:BAC/Dassault AFVG

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:AFVG/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   What page # for cite 12? I'd move Willox down to the References and adjust the cites accordingly. Consolidate cites 1 and 13. Corrected, actually only one is a quote from Willox, the other being Croup Captain Heron, cited in two instances, cite and bibliographic reference provided.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   One cite needed. Now added.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I believe I have addressed your comments. Standing by for further instructions. Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Corrected some sections today, notably lede and BAC P.45 background. Bzuk (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost forgot, need the page # from Wood for the specifications.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That has now been added, with help from other editors. Kyteto (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Why is so much information in the notes. Can't it be incorporated in the main text body instead? P. S. Burton (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Matter of choice; most of the information is extraneous and involves "asides" so that is the reason for the use of notes to explain more to the reader, yet not take away from the general narrative. FWiW, see above review. Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, two of the notes were actually created in response to a challenge regarding the BAC P.45, another was to link partners that were not involved in the final MRCA project, yet were initially considered, the other two notes were to define terminology. FWiW, other "notes" were actually re-written into the body of the text. Bzuk (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AFVG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105085913/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2027A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Birth%20of%20Tornado.pdf to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2027A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Birth%20of%20Tornado.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105085913/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2027A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Birth%20of%20Tornado.pdf to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2027A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Birth%20of%20Tornado.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I claim BS on this

"In order to justify the absence of any new strike aircraft following the failure of multiple projects to develop or procure one, Healey decided to entirely dismantle the requirement for one. Thus, in 1968, Prime Minister Harold Wilson, alongside Healey, announced that British troops would be withdrawn in 1971 from major military bases in South East Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Maldives, collectively known as 'East of Suez'.[28][29][25]"

I think this statement is BS. The East of Suez decision was made for a number of reasons, but none of them appear to have anything whatsoever to do with this aircraft.

The first claimed citation states exactly the opposite, that the F111 order would be reduced by 50 (is that all of them?) because there would no longer be a role for them overseas. That is, the aircraft was a victim of the decision, not the other way around. Further, the AFVG appears nowhere in this document.

The second citation is more of same. There are several mentions of cutting various aircraft programs, even in the context of troop withdrawls, but all of these are stating both will be withdrawn for the same underlying economic reasons. The term "strike aircraft" or any reasonable variation appears nowhere I can find, and the only mention of aircraft specifically for the overseas role is one mentioning the need for new transport aircraft.

And finally, the third citation does indeed finally mention AFVG, but in this case says exactly nothing whatsoever about east of suez.

I believe this statement is SYN and should be removed.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)