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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop YF-23[edit]

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"}'

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a nice small documentation of a unique prototype aircraft, the Northrop YF-23. I believe the article adheres to A-class requirements. If you're wondering about the article's size, I'd say it's because of the secrecy which naturally surrounds stealth aircraft/advanced technology. Also, it's only a prototype, so there is no history of combat or air force operations. I hope to get this article to FAC status following this ACR. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone could help with the prose here, I'd appreciate it, my time is tight today. I see a number of problems in the lead section.
• Per WP:SLASH, only use /'s in a few special cases, or when the sources support that the name of the thing is almost always written with the slash. For instance: "A number of companies, divided into two teams, submitted their proposals. The Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics camp entered the YF-22. The Northrop/McDonnell Douglas group promoted the larger YF-23." I might be wrong, but I don't think anything would be lost here by deleting the first sentence and going with: "Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics entered the YF-22, while Northrop and McDonnell Douglas promoted the larger YF-23."
• "It was a finalist ...": The word "finalist" doesn't mean "the only one not to succeed", it means a final-round contestant that has won a previous round of competition.
• "Two YF-23s were built ... The YF-23": Either use YF-23 to mean one of the planes, or to mean the design and proposal, not both (at least, not so close together).
• "for the United States Air Force. It was a finalist in the United States Air Force's (USAF) ...": acronyms go at the first occurrence. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two were finalists. Proposals were submitted by each of the 5 companies before they teamed up and the selection of the final two made. This has been clarified in the article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other comments have been addressed also. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, the lead is now a little worse than it was before my last edit. Someone give it another whack, please. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comment is too vague for me to tell what issue you mean. I did correct some wording and add some detail to the Lead. Whatever, done. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not yet, but take your time. The article is getting a lot of editing, which is good ... some problems are getting fixed, others are popping up. I'll read it again in a couple of weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry, I've started a break from copyediting so I can get some writing done, so I won't be able to finish this review. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Everything looks good. If you're headed to FAC, watch out for WP:SLASH. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on a content level (closing person, use your judgement if I don't comment further). I think the scope of the article is right, and it covers the topic areas I'd want to see. (What is it with Minnesota, by the way?) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that a rhetorical question? Minnesota is the location of the publisher's office. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm still seeing some stylistic issues in the lead and the article itself. I took a whack at correcting some of them (and please undo if you don't think they work). Information is good, though. In the specs section is it possible to indicate which are estimated?Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the section regarding design and development, the use of the word "discovery" when dealing with Soviet designs isn't correct English use in my view. Discovery implies that they were somehow unearthed as existing things. I don't want to get into a revert war here, so I'm suggesting that the word be changed to something else. "...emphasized when U.S. intelligence learned of the development..." is one possibility. If you feel strongly about it, whatever, but like Dank I feel there are still some stylistic issues here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. The Soviet prototypes were first spotted/seen by recon satellites. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks much better now.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - nothing major:Support
  • No dabs ([1]), external links check out ([2]), all images have alt text ([3]) (no action required).
  • The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing ([4])(no action required).
  • Images all appear to be PD (no action required).
  • References all appear to high quality WP:RS AFAIK, and you use a consistent citation style through out (no action required).
  • The citation error check tool reveals one citation that needs to be consolidated:
    • Goodall 1992, p. 91. (Multiple references contain the same content).
      • Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of United States Air Force - in places you use "United States Air Force" and in other U.S. Air Force. Abbreviation is fine at second instance. Likewise you use "U.S. Navy" and "US Navy" so these should also be presented consistently IMO.
  • is this a typo: "heat ablating tiles"? Should it read "heat abating tiles"?
    • I checked a different dictionary and "ablating" seems correct. My apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, ablate is not a common word. I've only seen it used for the eroding/wearing away of insulation on rockets. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • you might consider providing a wikilink to explain terms like "roll" and "pitch" (perhaps something like Flight dynamics (aircraft)).
    • Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "study strain gauge loads calibration techniques", should this be "study strain gauge load calibration techniques"?
    • Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar here: "interim bomber appeared ended with the 2006", not sure about "appeared ended". Perhaps reword to "interim bomber were ended by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review" or something similar.
    • Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall an interesting and well-written article. IMO only a few minor issues with prose and style to sort out/discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All issues resolved. Happy to support, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Link ablating, perhaps to Wikitionary if necessary.
• Jenkins and Landis need a year to match the format for your other cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Added link and publish year. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree that the evaluation section isn't up to standard as there's no discussion of why the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sp33dyphil and I added a sentence or so on this. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -SidewinderX (talk)

• I see a lot of source-vomit. See WP:OVERCITE. In general, you don't need to use multiple sources to cite a non-controversial point and you don't need to cite every sentence for the sake of citing every sentence with a different souce. If one source covers the content of three paragraphs, save the reader's eyes and just use that one source at the end of those sentences.
  • Does every sentence in the first graph of Design and development (D&D) need a different source? Surely some of those sourse cover the same territory and can be used for two or three sentences instead of a different ref for each one.
  • In the second graph of D&D, do you need three sources to verify that Northrop and Lockheed were selected to make prototypes? Is that particularly controversial?
  • In the third graph, do you need two sources to verify the definition of supercruise?
  • Three sources for the day it was rolled out?
  • Four sources for the first flight?
  • Two sources for the other AV's first flight?
  • Every sentence is seperately cited in the Evaluation section... again, is that really necessary? Do some of the sources cover the same territory? Citing every senetence really hinders readability.
• Second graph of D&D - what does "switly eliminated" mean? That implies to me that there was something substantial deficient with their designs and begs the question "why were they swiftly eliminated?". Do any of the sources speak to that?
• When you mention the fact that the YF-23 did not include thrust vectoring, maybe mention that the YF-22 did?
• Earlier in the article "PAV-1" and "PAV-2" are mentioned, but the last paragraph of the D&D section drops that nomeclature and uses the serial numbers. Can you add the PAV-1/2 nomeclature in as well for consistency?
• The Evalution section is very weak to me. The only thing this aircraft did was be evaluated so it woul dbe nice to have a slightly more robust section here. Specifially, it's a little jarring to me as a reader to see weapons firing mentioned right away without any introduction or description of the overall evaluation program.
• Speaking of weapons firing... the implication in those first sentences is that the YF-23 couldn't fire a missile and that was counted against it in the evaluation -- is that true? Or did the test program just not include weapons firing from the YF-23?
• The "Possible revival" and "Aircraft on display" sections seem to contrict one another. The Possible revival section states that NGC modified PAV-2 as a model of a proposed bomber, yet the Aircraft on display section states that NGC borrowed it for display purposes and then returned it to the museum (implying that it's still a YF-23, not a modified bomber model). Which one is it? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is difficult enough finding detailed info on the YF-23. It took multiple references to cover the details in places. But I'm working on combining footnotes from sources I have and can check. There is no real conflict on the interim bomber use. The YF-23 was modified only for display use; believe only the cockpit was modified/updated.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-interim use -- Ok, that wasn't clear to me from the article. I was picturing some heavily modified, large-winged variant for display. Then again, my imagination has been know to run wild from time to time... :) -SidewinderX (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have addressed these concerns as best as possible. Some of those I could not find, like about using only serial numbers in a section. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.