- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list[reply]
- Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk)
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been updated and amended since achieving GA status and I wish to take it to the next level along in the hope of eventually obtaining FA status Hammersfan (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: good work on this. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead, "...a number of different roles including air defence, close air support, low level strike and tactical reconnaissance." I wonder if some of these roles can be linked?
- "RAF Leuchars, the UK's most northerly air defence base": the article on Leuchars itself says that the base was the second most northerly. Was Leuchars the most northerly at the time? If so perhaps say " RAF Leuchars, which was the UK's most northerly air defence base at the time";
- in the Variations section, I suggest trimming the subheadings a little to remove the word "Between";
- "AAM" - the abbreviation probably should be formally introduced on first mention, i.e "air-to-air missile (AAM)";
- slightly redundant wording: "compared to the then current US Navy carriers of the period..." --> "compared to the US Navy carriers of the period";
- there are a few terms that appear to be overlinked, for instance "English Electric", HMS Hermes (R12), De Havilland Sea Vixen, HMS Eagle (R05), HMS Ark Royal (R09), Aeroplane and Armament Experiment Establishment, Touch-and-go landing, RAF Leuchars, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy...are a few examples. If you install this script (User:Ucucha/duplinks) it will help you find the duplicate links so you can work out if they are totally necessary.
- the citation style is a little inconsistent. For instance compare "Buttler 2000, pp. 118–119" with "Richardson, Doug (1984). "Chapter 3: Propulsion". Modern Fighting Aircraft F4. London: Salamander Books. p. 26. ISBN 0861011333." (There are other examples).
- per MOS:ALLCAPS: " "Part 15. ROYAL AIR FORCE – Role & Operations. BATTLE ATLAS of the FALKLANDS WAR 1982 by Land, Sea and Air" --> " "Part 15. Royal Air Force – Role & Operations. Battle Atlas of the Falklands War 1982 by Land, Sea and Air";
- the citation to "Legendary F4 Phantom jet fighter comes ashore in Larne" should have date, work or publisher and access/retrieved dates";
- in the Further reading section, the word "since" probably should be capitalised in the titles to conform with the style of title case capitalization;
- "lost a total of 9 of their..." --> " lost a total of nine of their..."
- "1966–1969" --> "1966–1969" per WP:DATERANGE;
- suggest linking "No. 229 Operational Conversion Unit RAF";
- this probably needs a citation: "As a consequence, it was then decided to further reduce the FAA's Phantom fleet to just 28 aircraft. The remaining 20 aircraft were then allocated to the Royal Air Force."
- same as above for: "The overall changes to the aircraft led to the two variants being given their own separate series letters, with the FAA version being designated as the F-4K and the RAF version as the F-4M."
- as above for: "Eventually, the Tornado accounted for the two FG.1 squadrons at RAF Leuchars (43 and 111 Squadrons), plus two FGR.2 units (23 Squadron and 29 Squadron), with 56 and 74 Squadrons remaining with the Phantom."
- as above for: "The Phantom's versatility was such that, in the RAF and Royal Navy, it was the direct replacement in squadron service for a total of four different aircraft types, with nine separate variants amongst them. In turn, when the Phantom was replaced in service, its major roles required three separate aircraft."
- as above for the table in the "Aircraft replaced by and replacing the Phantom" section.
- Gone through list and dealt with all above areas. Hammersfan (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, thanks, your changes look good. Thanks for your efforts. Please don't strike my comments, though, as it makes it harder for others to read. I've added my support, but have a couple more suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- this sentence is still unreferenced: "The Phantom subsequently served as the RAF's primary interceptor for over a decade until the introduction into service of the Panavia Tornado F.3 in 1987."
- The "Basic specifications" table probably should be cited
- The Further reading section should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- I started copyediting with a view to a full review but it looks like other changes are happening simultaneously; pls ping me when done and I'll see about getting back to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please go ahead - I will hold off making any changes for now. Hammersfan (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I took so long to get back to this, but I've now completed my planned review:
- Prose-wise, it read quite well but needed considerable tightening IMO. I may have addressed some of Peacemaker's original concerns in the process of copyediting, although I'm probably not the best person to tackle jargon as the terms are mostly familiar to me.
- Structure-wise, I can imagine the article was a challenge but no obvious improvements occurred to me.
- Image-wise, I defer to Nikki's review.
- Source-wise, I only checked the bibliography but they all looked pretty reliable to me.
- Content-wise, it seems a thorough history of the subject, very detailed in parts but not inordinately so.
Just one other thing, you have several duplicate links; some may be justified in an article of this length but pls review in any case, you can use this script to highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Unable to find original source, so have replaced image with self-created one Hammersfan (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport (this will take me a few days to work through) by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- United Kingdom is probably linked unnecessarily. - Done
- the last sentence is too long. Needs to be broken down into several shorter sentences. - Done
- Background
- explicitly introduce RAF as an initialisation, same with USN, FAA, NAS, SACEUR etc. Be consistent with initialisations, introduce them then use them. - Done
- "new-built" is a strange combination. Perhaps just "new" - Done
- drop initial caps on General Election - Done
- the sentence beginning "As a consequence, the government..." is too long. Needs to be broken down. - Done
- The sentence beginning "Although several had received major..." doesn't make sense. Perhaps ((xt|Although several British carriers had received major upgrades, they were all smaller than the USN carriers that J79-GE-8 and −10 powered Phantoms operated from. - Done
- The sentence beginning "Initially, there was an intention..." is also too long. Needs to be broken down. - Done
- Variants
- " fit check" and " full up" are jargonish, could be deleted without losing meaning. - Provided link to "fit check", which is accepted terminology in aviation testing; reduced "full up" to "full", as it needs to be clear that this testing was full launch and recovery
- "consisted primarily of" - if they were the only carriers, it "consisted of", if not, more explanation is needed. - Done
- suggest In 1970, Ark Royal embarked 892 NAS as part of her air group for the first time, with a total of 12 aircraft - Done
- AoA is only used once, so doesn't need an initialization - Done
- leaving no ship
left - Done
- "During the type's service with the Royal Navy, a total of 10 of the total FAA fleet of 28 were lost." I would expect some simple explanation here of how they were lost, ie x damaged during landing, x ditched, etc - Indicated they were lost in crashes; more detail in reference
- As an air force numpty, I have no idea what interdiction means in terms of the F-111K. It needs a link or explanation when first mentioned. - Done
- "stood up" is also jargonistic ( a couple of examples) - "standing up" is the recognized terminology for the beginning of service of a new military unit
- avionics should be linked when first mentioned - Done
- suggest A further four Phantom squadrons were formed in RAF Germany - Done
- recce is jargonistic, you could drop it. - Done
- 4 should be four per MOS - Done
- sentence beginning with "The conversion of the RAF's FGR.2..." is too long, break it down. - Done
- sentence beginning with "As more Jaguars were delivered..." is far too long, break it down. - Done
- bolding of "air superiority grey" isn't called for. - Done
- I know what Operation Corporate was, but few casual readers will. Suggest using a direct link to the Falklands War. - Done
- sentence beginning "Initially, it was intended that Phantoms and Tornados serve alongside each other; a total of 152 Tornado F.3..." is far too long, break it down. - Done
- suggest were
thea special production batch - Done
- sentence beginning with "The major difference between..." is too long, break it down. - Done
- in the same sentence, "with instead the aircraft" doesn't read well, suggest refactoring as part of the rewrite of the sentence. - Done
- Variations
- sentence beginning "In addition to the folding nose..." is again too long. - Done
- sentence beginning with "McDonnell Aircraft had been conducting studies..." is also too long. - Done
- Aircraft on display
- The first sentence doesn't make sense. - Done
Overall, the article looks in pretty good shape to me (but I'm an aircraft numpty). There are some formatting issues around sandwiching text between infoboxes and images (eg in the F-4K Phantom FG.1 subsection) and with hidden tables that drop down below a neighbouring infobox (in the same subsection) when viewed on narrower screens. The prose needs some work, with a fair amount of jargon and initialisations/acronyms, and quite a few overly long sentences. The sources all look reliable for what they are citing. I haven't looked at the image licensing, but generally feel some of the images are of limited value, and removal would help with some of the sandwiching. Well done so far. Ping me when you're done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersfan, what's the status on this one? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersfan: I was advised that this was ready for closure, after a cursory review of the article everything appears to be in order however in a toolbox check you hit a roadblock: Some of the external links used in the article are reported as dead. This needs to be addressed in the article before I can pass it, particularly if any of the sources are used as references in the article itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @TomStar81: Fixed the links, please have a look. These are my edits. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.