Talk:North American XB-70 Valkyrie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is very close to meeting all criteria.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Article appears to be very well written; although there appears to be certain sections, especially the development section that may be a bit to technical for the casual reader, it can be followed with a bit of effort.

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

   Passed WP:LEAD.Issue resolved.
   Needs work on WP:LAYOUT; the section regarding WS-110 could be summarized better, and the content largely moved to the article WS-110A as background. Issue resolved.
   Use of the word great in Downsizing, upswing, cancellation section can be changed. Issue resolved.

   • I summarized the wording there some, but do not get the Layout issue comment. The article follows standard WP:Aircraft layout with the main sections. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

   • I am not familiar with standard WP:Aircraft layout, so that might be myfault. Regarding the layout, it was regarding the summarization issue, where as summarization falls under the layout category. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

   • What's the problem with using "at great cost" there? I don't see that as any worse than "high cost" or other ways of saying the same thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

   • Yes, great, is a peacock word; I understand its use, but perhaps using a non-peacock term can still convey what it is that GEN LeMay was trying to say. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

   • That wasn't a puffery/biased use, but "high cost" is more common wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
     

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are three sentences that have been tagged for need of citation, these need to be addressed prior to approval. Issue resolved.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Due to certain sentences needing references, I will hold Issue resolved.

   C. No original research:

   There does not appear to be an original research in this article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article is of significant size and goes into the reasoning for development, and reasoning into why the development ceased.

   B. Focused:

   Article does not wander to far from subject, for the most part; however, the development portion can be summarized better, and certain aspects be moved to the design section The "missile problem" section can be better summarized. Issues resolved.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article appears to be fairly balanced; no POV or weight issues observed

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Looking back to March 2011, article appears to be fairly stable, without significant content changes.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No problems seen in this section

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   no problems seen in this section

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article needs to be tweaked in a couple ways, prior to it receiving a pass or fail grade. I will reassess in two weeks (11JUN11). One more thing, and it should work. Long article, but is sufficient for GA. Since this is my first review, asking for a second opinion, to double check my work.

Hi RCLC, I think you did a damn fine job on this review. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to second opinion rendered, article passes. Congratulations to the editors woes efforts contributed to this achievement. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)