Talk:High Virgo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The High Virgo missile, also" later in the sentence the definition is introduced.


 * Was Convair a manufacturer of the missile as well?
 * Yes - Lockheed built the missile itself, while Convair constructed the special pylon that mounted the missile to the B-58; they were officially co-contractors on the project.


 * Place ALBM after "air-launched ballistic missile"


 * First sentence of "Design and development" is too long, and requires a split.


 * Pipe link "strategic weapons" with "Weapon of mass destruction"


 * Not sure, but shouldn't Lockheed Aircraft be replaced with the ungainly "Lockheed Missiles, Space, and Electronics Systems Group"?
 * No; at the time, it was simply "Lockheed Corporation" - I've changed the text to that.


 * "supersonic medium bomber" Medium-range?
 * No, it was a medium bomber in payload. I'll wikilink that.


 * Link research-and-development


 * Wikify "cruise missile"


 * utilized vs utilising I suggest using use
 * Went with the alternative "equipped".


 * "200 miles" Km measurement?


 * what does "ASAT" stand for? "Anti-satellite ..."?
 * Yes - I've clarified that.


 * Could the table in "Launch history" be merged into "Operation history"?
 * Not practically; it's kind of a supplement to the article, a la Bold Orion and other articles.
 * But wouldn't operational history include launches? I mean, if the thing didn't fly, then it wasn't considered operational. I'm trying to keep things "tight". Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, I can see your point, but I prefer to keep them seperate, if it's not a big deal. I may modify the table some though for better appearance. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * References for specifications?
 * ✅, also refined some of the specs


 * Why did the missile fall out of favour?
 * It didn't; it was intended all along as strictly a R&D project. I've added a sentence at the end to clarify that.
 * Hopefully that clears things up? Thanks for the review! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 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:
 * Thanks! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Thanks! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)