 | Vought XSO2U 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 22, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the Vought XSO2U (pictured) was judged superior to the Curtiss XSO3C by the U.S. Navy in a competition for a new scout aircraft for operation from cruisers, the Curtiss aircraft won the contract? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Vought XSO2U/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I will review this over the weekend:
The first thing I noticed was that the article seems a little on the small side. Can you reticify that? That won't stop it from passing GAN, but you might have problems higher up, like at FAC. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I can see what I can do, but I don't think there's much more available. I can try to get some interlibrary loan books perhaps. Wasn't really thinking of going beyond GA, but, of course, you never know. And thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- <overinflated ego>Well, I have an airplane that progressed no farther than the drawing board, yet is longer. Proof: [1].</overinflated ego> It is always good to blaze a path through FA. I copyedited and added some links to the article, please take a look. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the napkinwaffe that is "Luft '46" probably has used up more trees writing about it than the Germans did for the blueprints. =P But fair point. And nice work! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- <overinflated ego>Well, I have an airplane that progressed no farther than the drawing board, yet is longer. Proof: [1].</overinflated ego> It is always good to blaze a path through FA. I copyedited and added some links to the article, please take a look. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You are writing this in British English, right? Some of the words I come across are spelled ... *aha!* interestingly. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Heavy reliance on Adcock, something that will haunt you in FAC and ACR if you don't fix it now (maybe even a GAR). WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Beyond that, I think this article can pass. Good work. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, I use a 'British-ish English' primarily; I'll see if I can find any additional sources, but as a "failed project" there's not much out there on the SO2U. So, it passed? Awesome. Much thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Beyond that, I think this article can pass. Good work. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)