Talk:McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)
  • Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Promoting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)