 | Sud-Ouest Espadon has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 27, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Photo
editI have added a photo, but haven't removed Imageneeded as a photo of a complete aircraft would be much better. Lestocq (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The french Wikipedia includes SO.6020_Espadon.jpg --Diego bf109 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sadly, it's not properly licensed and should be deleted from Commons--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sud-Ouest Espadon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I will review, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Lead
- link mixed-power?
- Spelled it out instead.
Background
- link Lucien Servanty
- ...and submitted the SO.6020 when the French Air Force issued not crazy about the phrasing here. Suggest something like "and submitted a design proposal, designated SO.6020, in response to the French Air Force issuing..."
- Rephrased.
- The aircraft had have a speed "had have"? Maybe " had to have.
- with planes to order "plans"?
- aircraft satisfied the requirements. suggest "aircraft satisfied its requirements.
- The aircraft was a metal-skinned mid-wing suggest "As built, the aircraft was a metal-skinned mid-wing..."
- was the Heinkel ejection seat part of the original specification?
- Yes.
Development
- possibly due to the need to revise the air intakes shouldn't intakes be singular? Or should the first mention of intakes be plural?
- Good catch.
- Is there a link for SO.6025?
- No.
- I'm confused by the references to the SO.6021 in this section. On the one hand, it is a fighter prototype and on the other it is the proposed production version.
- I think that I've clarified it now
Specifications
- Is it necessary to recite the book titles here, can't [16], [17] just go against the "General characteristics" heading?
- The aircraft specs template won't allow that
- OK, I didn't realise that was a template. Zawed (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Other stuff
- One dupelink - cockpit
- Image tags look OK
That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Sturm, just checking you've seen this. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, passing as GA as I believe it meets the criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- See if my changes are satisfactory. Thanks for being patient with me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)