Talk:Northrop YF-23/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Technical review
 * Dab links come up for Northrop and Lockheed.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The woodoo-world.cz external link seems to time out.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Structure/prose/images/detail
 * Performed my usual brief copyedit but generally everything above looks okay.

Referencing
 * All statements cited and works appear reliable. Main thing is inconsistencies in style:
 * There's a mixture of US and British date formats in journal and retrieval dates.
 * While most access dates appear as "Retrieved " and "Retrieved: " (with colon) -- should be consistent.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid we still have a mix of "Retrieved" and "Retrieved:" (with colon). I think the issue is that you use the "accessdate" parameter in some citations; this returns "Retrieved " without a colon. The way around the inconsistency is to always use "Retrieved" in your manually written retrieval dates -- then they should all match up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All looks consistent now, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That took longer than necessary. Sorry, I missed the difference with the cite template ones.  Thanks to Sp33dyphil for reformatting those to make consistent. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some cited links have retrieval dates and some don't -- all should, I think.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no, a number of online citations still don't have a retrieval date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Date formats are all D-M-Y format for US military. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary
 * This looks like a decent, succinct article on the alternative stealth fighter, so if you can just address the above minor points I'll be happy to pass it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I had wrote an elaborate summary of comments and sentences I think could use turning, with substitute suggestions also included. Wikipedia had a serious server error, and helpfully all that was lost. So hours later, now I feel the server is more stable, I'll try again. Here's hoping. Kyteto (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kyteto comments
 * "The YF-23s were relegated to museum exhibits." I would reword as "Both YF-23s are now museum exhibits".  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "This was made more crucial by the emerging worldwide threats, including development and proliferation of Soviet Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class fighter aircraft." Fulcrum isn't really a class, I'd change this confusing wording towards: "The need for a more advanced aircraft was emphasised by foreign advances, emerging Soviet fighters like the Su-27 and MiG-29 were designed with considerable agility, and several other nations were proposing new aircraft as well."  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Piloted by Jim Sandberg, this fighter took off for its first flight on 26 October" I'd replace with: "This aircraft made its first flight on 26 October, piloted by Jim Sandberg".  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "It has been speculated in the aviation press that the YF-22 was also seen as more adaptable to the Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter" I'd reword to "Miller made note of speculation that the YF-22 was also seen..."
 * Didn't change because another source had surfaced.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd redistribute some of the references in the first paragraph of the body, they're a bit bunched up as four in a row, while there's no others littered throughout. It isn't a problem at GA level, but as I am being asked for comments, the people up at FAC would probably tear into it as it is. Then again, some of the people at FAC need tearing into.... :P
 * Moved one source.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Both YF-23s were furnished in the configuration specified before the requirement for thrust reversing was dropped" This wording confuses me a little. Was there ever a prototype made with thrust reversing? And what is the 'configuration specified', specified where, in that paragraph? It could use a little clarity, though I'd be tempted to dump much of the sentence altogether, as I don't understand what it was trying to convoy. Perhaps I'm being a little dense though.
 * Fnlayson added that.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the requirement for thrust reversers was dropped during development (see Advanced Tactical Fighter). The bulges in the fuselage skin for the engine was not shrunk after the reversers were dropped. Suppose I need to clarify this in the text.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope this has been helpful, it hasn't been my intention to do anything other. I defer to Ian Rose as the more experienced primary reviewer, who shall have the final say. I'll try to think up some more comments tomorrow following a fresh look. Kyteto (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks Kyteto, and also Fnlayson for his work. As the article seems to have stabilised again now, I had another quick run-though and am generally satisfied with mods but pls note above comment re. retrieval dates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Passing as GA, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)