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

Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Starting review. Pyrotec ( talk) 08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I've had a quick couple of read throughts and this appears to be a good article. I will now do a detailed review to see whether this can be awarded Good Article status. This might take another day or so depending what, if any, problems arise in this stage. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Development -

• Refs 4 and 5 are books; and they are both "called" thee times. The relevant page(s) number(s) should be given in the citations.

....to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Y Pyrotec ( talk) 18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC) - The statement in the middle paragraph that BAE developed a navalised variant of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier is historically inaccurate, as BAE did not exist at that time, it would have been (probably) Hawker Siddeley and later British Aerospace. reply

• That's been corrected and explained. Is that OK or is more work needed? - Fnlayson ( talk) 21:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• That's why I put a Y. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Doh, missed that. - Fnlayson ( talk) 22:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Design -

• Y Pyrotec ( talk) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) - Refs 17 is a book. The relevant page(s) number(s) should be given in the citation. reply

Unable to find a viewable copy of the book. Folded over to Bibliography, the reference is already covered by a second thus will be no direct loss of info or verifiability. Kyteto ( talk) 13:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Just leaving a second note that I believe I have taken care of all that has been outlined above. Kyteto ( talk) 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Operational history -

....to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Falklands War -

• Y Pyrotec ( talk) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) - Its not clear what CAP is. reply

• WP:Lead -

• This is rather sparse. Its intended to provide both an Introduction to the article and a concise summary of the main points. I would suggest that it needs to be at least twice its current size.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative well illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. congratulations on poroducing an informative article. Pyrotec ( talk) 07:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply