Talk:Chase XCG-20/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Crowz  RSA  01:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The cargo hold was 30 feet (9.1 m) long and 12 feet (3.7 m) wide,[3] and featured an innovative configuration, the rear fuselage being upswept with a integrated loading ramp, allowing vehicles to be driven directly on and off of the aircraft.[4] This is a run-on or something, it really doesn't read well. Crowz  RSA  15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Data from Adcock - This should be changed to a complete sentence, perhaps The following data can be verified by Adcock. Crowz  RSA  15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually standard format for Aircraft specs. I've changed it to list the title of the book instead though.


 * {{{xt|The largest glider ever built in the United States, it did not see…}} Insert "Being" at the beginning of the sentence. Crowz  RSA  15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reshuffled that sentence in an alternative matter, hope it reads better now.


 * You need to refer to the Air Force as USAAF throughout the article instead of USAF, as it was still the army air forces. Crowz  RSA  15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the XG-20 didn't fly until 1950, two years after the USAF was established as an independent service from the former USAAF. I have clarified the wording in several places though


 * hydraulic power to the landing gear and flaps,[3] The nose The comma should be a period. Crowz  RSA  15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Primary user should be the United States Army Air Forces, not United States Air Force. Crowz  RSA  15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the USAAF never used the type at all - it was the USAF that conducted all the flight testing.


 * However Chase had designed the aircraft to allow for the easy… Insert comma after However. Crowz  RSA  15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the references, occasionally you refer to the page number as stuff like page 1, when it should be p. 1


 * That's all I see, I'll put the article on hold for a while. If the issues are addressed, I will pass the article. Crowz  RSA  15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! :) I've worked on everything (except the USAAF/USAF thing, as explained), hope it's improved. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Result
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Congratssss, the article is pretty short, but still passable for GA. Crowz  RSA  18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)