Talk:Hawker Siddeley P.1154/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Isn't this a bit redundant? while the RAF continued development of the P.1127(RAF) project which would lead to the successful Harrier family You have a mix of American and British English, standardize on the latter since it was a British project.

I removed project. Is that redundant? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Is the formal designation P.1154(RAF), with no space between them? It reads very oddly to me. Perhaps you could reword this as "the RAF version" or some such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the space between P.1127 and (RAF), and yes, I believe that's the official desig. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

   Buttler book needs place of publication. What makes Harrier.org.uk reliable?

The info on Harrier.org.uk matches the info in my books, although the website is more detailed. Also, it's the only source of specifications for the P.1154 – the books talk more about the politics. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are specs for both the single-engined RAF version and the twin-Spey RN version in Francis Mason's The British Fighter since 1912, although they do not match the ones quoted in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Harrier.org.uk needs to be replaced, Buttler at least has partial data for the RN version unless Nigel is willing to transcribe Mason's data for us.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added the RAF data from Mason - could really do with more. Has anyone seen Project Cancelled by Derek Wood? It may have some more details.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wood only has performance specs for the RAF variant. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. 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:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)