Talk:Hawker Siddeley P.1154/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * I removed project. Is that redundant?  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed project. Is that redundant?  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the formal designation P.1154(RAF), with no space between them? It reads very oddly to me. Perhaps you could reword this as "the RAF version" or some such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the space between P.1127 and (RAF), and yes, I believe that's the official desig.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 05:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The info on Harrier.org.uk matches the info in my books, although the website is more detailed. Also, it's the only source of specifications for the P.1154 – the books talk more about the politics.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are specs for both the single-engined RAF version and the twin-Spey RN version in Francis Mason's The British Fighter since 1912, although they do not match the ones quoted in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are specs for both the single-engined RAF version and the twin-Spey RN version in Francis Mason's The British Fighter since 1912, although they do not match the ones quoted in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Harrier.org.uk needs to be replaced, Buttler at least has partial data for the RN version unless Nigel is willing to transcribe Mason's data for us.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the RAF data from Mason - could really do with more. Has anyone seen Project Cancelled by Derek Wood? It may have some more details.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wood only has performance specs for the RAF variant. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Ping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)