Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 09:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 17:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Czarking0 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2024 (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.	"equivalent to US$1300 million in 2021" - I know these tools are finicky but try to make this billions. "The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion" - Is there a reason 2004 is particularly notable? Also this section could use some graphs about projected vs actual, over time, procurement vs maintenance, maybe you have some additional ideas? "during the first two weeks of a conflict" - I assume this is Kosovo but the reader has no idea what conflict is being discussed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"As of 2011, the AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile is an upcoming standoff munition to be deployed on the B-2 and other platforms.[96] This is to be followed by the Long Range Standoff Weapon, which may give the B-2 standoff nuclear capability for the first time." - This does not align with the claims in the led and the claims themselves are fairly out of date. I would consider combining the "Opposition" and "Program costs and procurement" sub sections. The story may be more illuminating if the dates for the information in these two sections are side by side. "In 1998, a Congressional panel advised" - This feels like it does not really fit in this section?
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.	Is fas.org WP:RS? My gut says yes but I do think they are a POV organization.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvivo shows a possible violation for joebaugher.com which I agree has too many too close phrasing. Also this does not appear to be WP:RS
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"evidence of flaws in the aircraft's ability to elude detection by radar" - can you elaborate about the major pieces of evidence that were brought to the public's attention? Does the Northrop lobbying play a significant role in the procurement/opposition history? What about a map of where parts were made vs where senators voted against B2 funding? Several of the extension contracts such as DMS-M do not name which private companies were partnered with. If this info is available I would presume it was notable given the attention to private partners in other sections
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"In 1995, Northrop made a proposal to the USAF to build 20 additional aircraft with a flyaway cost of $566 million each." - Was not sure which section to put this in but if this is notable than you should cover what happened to the proposal. Otherwise, this probably does not need to be included?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	@DeadlyRampage26: At first glance I do not see you was a significant contributor to this article. Can you clarify if you meet the nomination criteria WP:GAN "Any significant contributor to an article may nominate it" Czarking0 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh hello. I may not meet the criteria after hearing this but I will check soon to confirm thankyou. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just reminding you that I am still expecting a response here Czarking0 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man sorry for keeping you waiting I've been doing with some other stuff. In line with the rule you mentioned I am probably unable to have submitted this properly considering I was not a significant contributor to the page. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I am going to fail this review but I appreciate you bringing it up and look forward to your other contributions Czarking0 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)