Wikipedia

Talk:McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk

Latest comment: 10 months ago by Idumea47b in topic 675mph at sea level?
Learn more about this page
Featured articleMcDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2017.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2013WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
June 9, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 12, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that ten of the twenty McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk aircraft (pictured) operated by the Royal Australian Navy between 1967 and 1984 were destroyed as a result of accidents?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. OK
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. OK, a couple of lead additions needed (see comments below)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. OK
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). No issues here
  2c. it contains no original research. OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. OK
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Concise but with appropriate level of detail
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No issues at all
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Fine
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. OK
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. OK
  7. Overall assessment. Great article, well done

Comments

  • suggest once abbreviation for FAA is introduced you use it throughout.
    • Done
  • suggest "Skyhawks at this time" be " Skyhawks at that time"
    • Done
  • suggest where you mention the initial order you specify the TA-4s were two seaters (you specify the Gs were single seaters and it just begs the question.
    • Done
  • in Thailand relieve → in Thailand to relieve
    • Fixed
  • link Royal Navy
    • Done
  • In May 1972 805 Squadron's → In May 1972, 805 Squadron's
    • Done
  • the infobox says in service to 1990, but the Kiwi's operated them till 2001? I guess they became K's when the were converted, so maybe just something in the body saying that all the G's were converted to K's by 1990 (if that's right, mentioned in the lead but not the body)?
    • Done (I thought I'd included this, but I'd missed it).
  • I suggest mentioning the lead that a further two were lost in NZ service, including a further death. Again, they were Ks but it is relevant given the accident record. I was wondering what the accident record of the Skyhawk was in general, and whether that is worth mentioning.
    • Done. The only source which discusses this is Wilson, who notes that the loss rate was due to the dangers of operating aircraft at sea. I'll look for some more general sources before taking this to an ACR, but all single-engined types of this era suffered pretty high loss rates (quite a few of the RAAF's Mirage IIIs were destroyed as a result of engine failures, for example). More generally loss rates of this era were much higher than those of modern types - for instance, when the RAAF purchased 75 F/A-18 Hornets in the early 1990s it expected to have written off eleven of them by 2000 - in the event only four had been lost by this time and none have (thankfully) been destroyed since 1992.
  • toolbox checks all green (no action required)
  • not requirements for GA, but just for noting for the future, no alt text on non-infobox images, several 10 digit isbns could be converted to 13 digit ones that are available per WP:ISBN
    • Thanks I'll follow up on this as part of the ACR preparations.
  • Have just put it on hold for those few things to be addressed. Great article! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Trainers never embarked on carrier

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Not sure if its worth adding into the article, but according to Hall's HMAS Melbourne (p. 82), the RAN never embarked the TA-4Gs aboard Melbourne because they weren't worth the risk of possibly damaging or destroying them during training landings. -- saberwyn 08:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's already covered in the fourth para of the Acquisition section :) Does the book say anything about them performing touch-and-go landings or similar? Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't outright state either way, but the impression I get is that they kept the trainers as far away from the carrier as possible. Here's the relevant half-paragraph: For in spite of the hundreds of hours training they have been through to reach this moment there is nothing which even remotely simulates the experience of landing and taking off from the real carrier. In the modern Skyhawks, which are single-seater jets, the pilots are entirely on their own and the first time is for real. The RAN has a pair of two-seater Skyhawks which it uses for training, but they don't want to lose or crash them and so they are never taken on board. -- saberwyn 12:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks for that. I think that 724 Squadron usually (always?) had some single-seaters on hand for deck landing training. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
IIRC the t-birds lacked the bridle attachment hook to enable tge to be used on the catapult. Secondly their utility in the training role even for touch and go evolutions would be very limited as the pilot's position was quite different in the trainer being further forward thus changing the geometry to the point that it would offer little advantage any way. Before going to the ship pilots spent many hours on the practice deck painted on the runway at NAS Nowra. -Nick Thorne talk 10:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

675mph at sea level?

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

That seems way too far for a subsonic jet at low altitude. That's slightly over Mach 1 at sea level for a jet that can't break the sound barrier at higher altitude? That seems very unlikely to me. Idumea47b (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_A-4G_Skyhawk&oldid=1206712825"