Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/GA1

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

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:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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. -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)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * 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:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 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)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 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)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 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)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)