Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The bit about the fuel system doesn't flow well. You set it up like some sort of list, but it doesn't read like one.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Book and article titles need to be capitalized in accordance with MOS:CAPS, notably the Composition titles section. Books and articles need place of publication and ISSN, including those in the references unless published on the web and given a URL.

   Where in the MoS is the requirement for books and articles to show an ISSN? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Hmm, you're right, they're only suggested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Can you point me to the suggestion please? I think this is fundamentally wrong-headed, but there might be a reason behind it that I'm not aware of. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Believe that is at WP:CITE#HOW. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   • To be more precise only journal articles should have an ISSN, books have an ISBN or OCLC#.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Thanks guys; whether it's right or wrong to suggest including it, the guideline specifically marks the ISBN as optional. This should not therefore be inflicted on articles going through GA/FA. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Please add cites where noted.

   • This is almost done. Everything cited now. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Clarify that the A-10C is the PEU upgrade. You might explain how the IFFCC equipment is an improvement. What do you mean by smart bombs? It's always been capable of carrying LGBs, etc. provided somebody else designated for them. Do you mean JDAM, SDB, what? Are they still using thirty-year-old ALQ-131s or has something else replaced them? Add a bit how the engine exhaust passes over the horizontal tail and between the vertical tails, which help to screen the hot engine exhaust from IR-seeking missiles. I really wouldn't consider four bolts to hold the engine on a particularly strong method. Personally I'd delete that bit, but that's just me. Modernization section seems to duplicate upgrade section earlier. Isn't the 81st Wing now inactivated or flying something else now? The fake canopy on the underside seems to have been used during the Cold War, I'm fairly certain that it's not used much nowadays. Provide a link to BRAC.

   • There probably is some duplication since the upgrades apply to both the A-10's development and its design. The duplication has been minimized before. BRAC link added. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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:

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

   Can you find a picture of the gun and ammo drum next to a VW Beetle? It really gave a good sense of just how massive the gun and ammo really are.

   • I had not seen that image on Wikipedia or Commons previously. That image seems more applicable to the GAU-8 article though, since the aircraft is not shown. Also the A-10 article is crowded with several gun images now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

OK, clear up the paragraph on the fuel system, list the 81st TFW as a former unit and find out if the fake canopy on the underside is still used. If not I'd suggest deleting it. Then we'll be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've moved a sentence and did rewording to clarify the fuel system protection paragraph in the Design section. I do not have the sources used to cite the false canopy, but did changed it to past tense since the sources are ~10 years old. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)