Talk:Hawker Siddeley Harrier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary comments:

• Some books have place of publication and others don't. I suggest that you add it to those that are missing it. But standardize it one way or another.
• The mention of basing in Norway in the lede is misleading as no permanent base was ever set up there for the Harriers, unlike in Germany.
• Watch your capitalizations as you've carried over article titles when linking that really aren't proper nouns.
• Add hat notes for the Harrier II and Sea Harrier articles to ensure that the reader knows that this article only covers the first-generation Harrier.
• More info on how the Harriers for each country differed from one another is needed. Presumably this was mostly confined to electronics, but details would be welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've created a poorly named section on this demand today. LEt me know what you make of it. Kyteto (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I added some extra details on the Marine version, but what about the Spanish and Thai aircraft?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, the Spanish and Thai aircraft were very few in number, and from what I've gathered, did hardly anything. The Thai purchase in particular is derided in their own nation as a white elephant that does nothing for their nation, branding the carrier they're based on the Thaitanic, and serves more as a Royal Yaught that it does as a ship of war, sailing for about one day of every month at most usually. They just didn't do anything noteworthy, or much of anything for that matter. Kyteto (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant how they differed from the RAF and USMC aircraft. I agree that there's not a whole lot of info on their service, so that's not a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish aircraft were "almost identical" to the Marine's AV8As. The only changes when they were sold to the Thais appears to have been the paint scheme.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've spend an hour chasing this issue. I'm finding no specific information on their specifications. I can only assume this is either because nobody cares about this variant (which'd be odd) or there are no meaningful changes or deviations made from the ordinary Harriers being banged out of the production line. As I understood it, they're just rebadged AV-8As, maybe with a radio system standard with the Spanish forces installed rather than the US one. I'm not getting anywhere with my searches. Kyteto (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's only a minimal change on the AV-8S Harriers and this version was bought by Thailand from Spain. So I think we have the model differences well covered here. I think the issues with the Lead mentioned below are only thing that is outstanding. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Lead is better now. I think it needs a bit more info to better describe things, though. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll think on it and see what I can come up with, expect some changes within the next 24 hours. Kyteto (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Now awaiting further instructions. Kyteto (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I've cleaned up a bunch of typos, so do a good copy-edit on the text. The paragraphs of the lede are a bit short and a few should probably be combined. It could also be longer.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Details on exported versions needed.

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: