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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk · contribs) 11:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Will get to this shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Lead and infobox;
  • was a unique American seaplane fighter aircraft; What is the purpose of "unique"?
    •  Fixed
  • The second para needs to be broken to sentences. Except the last sentence the entire para is presented as a single sentence using commas which in the end gives rise to difficulty in getting the flow and the meaning. Break this.
  •  Done
  • It was created "in 1950s" as a result of "to overcome" the problems with supersonic planes taking off and landing on aircraft carriers that was experienced in the 1950s
  •  Done
• Section 1;
  • Link U.S. Navy on the first mention; not on the second
  •  Done
• Section 2;
  • "Required" power was to be "put up" by a pair of after-burning Westinghouse XJ46-WE-02 turbojets
  •  Done
• Section 3;
  • Who is E. D. "Sam" Shannon? Mention his position, if possible
    • He doesn't have a military rank, as he just worked for Convair, as a test pilot. Is that worth mentioning? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • but they could not cure the sluggish performance -> but they were unable to resolve the sluggish performance
  •  Done
  • a demonstration for Navy officials -> a demonstration to the naval officials
  •  Done
  • disintegrated in midair; delink the external link. External links are not allowed in the body of the article per WP:EL
  •  Done
  • Link Second World War
  •  Done
  • breakup of the airframe -> airframe breakage
  •  Done
  • Link airframe
  •  Done
  • He is buried -> He was buried
  •  Done

• 70.4% confidence, violation likely. Please explain this.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Regarding copyvio (barging in as I was passing along) - it is most likely the youtube page created on Nov 16, 2007 copied from the wiki page that existed back then - [1] - looks like an exact copy of the 2007 version, but the wiki version pre-dates the youtube entry. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  @ Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I believe Icewhiz is correct here, but I shall investigate the issue. I believe that all other problems have been fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 06:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply