Talk:Advanced Tactical Fighter/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Steve7c8 (talk · contribs) 14:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Starting review

Simply announcing to editors that I am beginning this review. I am quite active so notify me here or on my talk page if you have anything you would like to tell me. Happy editing! - DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Initial review

I have now read the entirety of the article. My first thoughts are that the article is extremely well illustrated. The positioning of the media was well considered, and provides for a pleasant and engaging reading experience. The illustration media is vast in variety, and matches the topic at hand well, I particularly took note of this around the design and competition areas of the article. The content is understandable for the audience, and does not get overly complex, presenting the information in a simple but readable article. Citations are good, coming from a variety of platforms, including websites, magazines, and the like. Originally, I had a concern regarding the book citations, but after consulting Wikipedia guidelines, I see that the use of the book citations are fine and accepted. The article focuses directly on the program and the aircraft within it. All sentences and paragraphs are relevant to the main topic. From what I can distinguish, the article provides a NPOV and contains neither positive nor negative bias towards the program, or the competition. It espouses views from both sides of the critique spectrum. Given that the article is about a rather old (in context) program, and the aircraft has already been procured, there is no real day to day vast change in content. The article is stable. After comparing my thoughts with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, personally I think there is no reason this article should fail GA. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you agree that this article meets all 6 GA criteria?

1. Well-written

2. Verifiable with no original research

3. Broad in its coverage

4. Neutral

5. Stable

6. Illustrated

In that case, I'll adjust the template above to reflect. Thank you! Steve7c8 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)