Talk:McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 23:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

It's good to see that this article has been developed to a high standard, but I'm afraid that it needs more work to reach GA status:

• There's quite a bit of unreferenced material in the article, including entire paragraphs. All material needs to be supported by a reference for GA status.
  • There are still unreferenced footnotes in the references section (these should be converted to end notes of some sort as well BTW). Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Also review the article for repeated linking (for instance, of aircraft types), and over-linking of common terms
• How many aircraft were lost during the type's service with the UK?
  • Can this be added? Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Aside from the aircraft which have been placed on display, what happened to the British F-4s after they were retired? Were they all scrapped?
• Can anything be said about what the RN and RAF thought about these aircraft? Were they considered satisfactory, or a second best solution after the originally-planned designs were cancelled?
• I'd suggest specifying in the second para of the lead that the aircraft were all built in the US (this is strongly implied, but a clear statement would help)
• "the United Kingdom began the process" - I'd suggest tweaking this to "The British Government" or "the Royal Air Force"
• I don't think that the two companies should be dot points in the first para of the "background" section; please convert this to prose
• How were the companies combined? During this era the UK government regularly nationalised entire industries and combined comp-editors into large firms.
• Why did the Royal Navy and RAF originally select the F-4 over other designs?
• "these were to be built by BAC" - what this is referring to isn't clear (the engines, the revised aircraft design, or the entire aircraft?)
• The five carriers in the "F-4K Phantom FG.1" section don't need to be listed as dot points, and I'm not sure about the relevance of their date of commissioning
• "The intention was to form a pair of operational squadrons, each of twelve aircraft, that would operate from the two remaining, heavily modernised fleet carriers" - note also that a training squadron was to be formed, especially as it pops up in the next para - you answer your own question; two operational squadrons would not include the training squadron
  • It's not a question: this should be specified in the text Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• " Both 43 and 111 Squadrons retained the FG.1 until 1989 and the subsequent entry into service of the new Tornado F.3." - this is a bit vague: did the squadrons convert to the Tornado, or were they disbanded after the Tornado entered service?
• What did 64 (R) Squadron do with its FG.1s?
• "This resulted in the procurement of two aircraft, the General Dynamics F-111K and the F-4M Phantom" - what role was the F-4 expected to play in this mix of aircraft?
• "The aircraft were fitted with a recce pod containing 4 optical cameras, an Infra Red Linescan and a sideways looking radar." - which aircraft are being referred to here? Only II Squadron's?
• The process by which the ground attack squadrons were re-equipped with Jaguars is unclear
• Did the RAF's air defence F-4 squadrons only operate their aircraft as interceptors, or did they continue to train for ground attack missions? - the fact that this is not mentioned under the air defence element of the FGR.2 section should indicate that they did not. If they had then it would have been mentioned.
  • I don't think that's a good approach given that these were multi-role aircraft, with most operators using them as both fighters and as ground attack aircraft. I think that this should be specified Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It is stated clearly that the Phantom was introduced primarily as an air defence aircraft by the United States. It is stated that the RAF purchased the Phantom to replace the Hunter for close air support reluctantly. It is stated that the Phantom was replaced by an aircraft specifically designed for the close air support mission (the Jaguar). And it is stated clearly that the RAF transferred the Phantom to the air defence role, where it became their principal interceptor until the introduction of the Tornado. As for what "most operators" used them for, that is irrelevant, as this is use of the Phantom by the UK.
      • It seems surprising that the UK only used this versatile type of aircraft as an interceptor once they were assigned to the air defence units (given that the type was also capable of backing up the RAF units in Germany and performing anti-shipping missions), so I think that should be specified. Australia's use of its F-4s only as strike aircraft is considered unusual and highlighted in the various sources given that the type was often used in different roles, so it seems worth noting that the UK also ended up using these aircraft in only one role. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Again, it isn't for an article here to express opinion. It is stated several times that, once the RAF obtained other aircraft that were specifically designed for the close air support mission, it transferred its Phantoms to operate as interceptors.
• "Initially, it was intended that Phantoms and Tornados serve alongside each other" why was this the case? (was this to save on the costs of buying lots of Tornados, or did the aircraft complement one another?)
• The article doesn't say why the Phantoms were withdrawn rather than the Tornados (presumably because the Tornados were more advanced and newer) - the text consistently mentions "the new Tornado F.3", as well as that Phantom squadrons were converted to the Tornado; this should make it clear why the Phantom was withdrawn.
  • It should still be specified (especially as the F.3 Tornado wasn't a great aircraft and lots of other services kept their F-4s until well after this time) Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not for a Wikipedia article to pass opinion on whether or not the Tornado was a good aircraft, nor is it for an article about the Phantom to speculate why other nations decided not to purchase the Tornado. Whether or not the Tornado was any good is irrelevant - it was procured as the next RAF interceptor after the Phantom, with the intention that it replace the Phantom
      • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• I think that a detachment of F-4s was sent to Ascension island to provide air defence of the facilities there during the Falklands War - not relevant; this was a short-term, three-ship operational deployment akin to the deployment of 19 Sqn to Cyprus during the Gulf War. Only instances of units being stationed long-term are included, hence reference to 29 Sqn going to Stanley prior to the formation of 23 Sqn there.
  • The operational deployments of this type seem highly relevant. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I would strongly support mention of both the Ascension and Cyprus deployments. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
      • They already have been
• I don't think that the photo gallery of the aircraft which replaced the Phantom serves a useful purpose. This section also duplicates material already in the article.

Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hammersfan, you haven't edited the article nor this nomination since June 3, over a month ago. There are a number of comments still unaddressed. Were you planning to continue pursuing this nomination, or should Nick-D close it as unsuccessful? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No BlueMoonset, I do not wish it to be closed. I have addressed the remaining items. Please feel free to check these. Hammersfan (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that my comments are now sufficiently addressed to pass the article. If you're considering developing this to A-class status, I'd suggest reviewing the comprehensiveness of the article and quality of the sources, but the GA criteria are met. Nice work. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: