Talk:General Dynamics F-16XL/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 00:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• Looks good

Lead

• Mention the year it entered the ETF's competition, it was given to NASA, and they were put into storage at Edwards

Development

• Why did GD begin investigating F-16 derivatives
• "father of the original F-16" → "designer of the original F-16"
• Why is the Saab 35 Draken relevant?

Design

• Looks good

NASA testing

• Looks good

Aircraft on Display

• Change "Aircraft on Display" to "Aircraft on display"

Images

• All images have appropriate licenses
• All images have appropriate captions

References

• All sources look good

Overall

• Stable
• Neutral POV
• Focused on topic
• Sufficient coverage of topic

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@HarryKernow: I've done my review of the article and have left some comments. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 01:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed most of your concerns apart from your question about the relevance of the Saab 35 Draken - the text currently says the reason, which is that it has a similar wing. If it is not clear, I can try to reword. HarryKernow (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@HarryKernow: Is there a significance/connection to the F-16XL and the Saab 35? Was the F-16XL directly designed from the Saab 35? Were some people involved in the F-16XL project also involved with the Saab 35? If not, I don't think it's relevant to mention the Saab 35. It'd be like mentioning the A380 had four engines and saying that it was similar to the 747 which also had 4 engines. Other than that, everything else looks good. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 05:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The similarity is more than superficial; the "cranked-arrow" wing is (as far as I know) only found on 2 planes. Furthermore, the Draken was similar enough to be especially noted by GD engineers. Piccirillo p.9-10 talks about the Draken, saying that "during early thinking for the XL, General Dynamics engineers studied and discussed the Draken, recognizing its general similarity in design and relevance to their studies." It seemed relevant enough to mention given the unique wing and the slightly-more-than-in-passing mention in the primary source. However, if you feel it doesn't fit, I could either add a footnote expanding on the connection, or remove the parentheses. HarryKernow (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a footnote would work best. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Added that now. HarryKernow (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@HarryKernow: All looks good now. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 20:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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.