Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-35 Joint Strike Fighter/archive1

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
A very good article, not too long, cites sources and references, violates no policy of wikipedia and is also written well. Easily at the standard of past featured articles. Pictures are set out well, and the style is easy to follow.

Support I submit this article having seen it and I say that the only minor problem that could be changed is the length of the final paragraph. However, this is only the worst part of the article, and it is still very good. --The1exile 16:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I think you're not supposed to vote when you're the submitter of an article. Also note that new FACs go at the TOP of this list, not the bottom.–Rlevse 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Object The only references are two external links. There should be a reference section (bound to be some a topic this important and well known), with inline citations (see Inline Citation and FAC criteria). Most of the Specifications section could go into an infobox similar to the one in USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), making the info more readable. Most of the Design section could be put into prose (see FAC criteria).  I haven't read the text yet. –Rlevse 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment To clear up these issues, as far as military aircraft go there is usually a section on the specifications of the aircraft, as in F-22 and F/A-18 Hornet rather than an infobox. Also, I'm pretty sure that there is nothing on the featured article candidates page saying whether the new submissions should go at the top or the bottom of the article, so I decided to submit this like a new comment on a talk page. And feel free to ignore my support comment then. I will strike it out. Finally, with 13 external links, I dont understand your problems with lack of references. --The1exile 19:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Item 5 of the "Adding Nominations" section near the top of this page says "Place ===name of nominated article=== at the top." Did you read it? The F-22 and F/A-18 articles aren't trying to become featured articles.  External links are generally used to refer to amplifying data, a reference is used to provide source info that directly supports the points, comments, etc mentioned in the article. -- Rlevse


 * Comment Is it my browser that doesnt show my preceeding comment on the main page? I have already tried a purge. --The1exile 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, but when you edit the FAC page, they don't show up right away, but if you click on a edit button for a FAC nomination, they'll be there. It seems to take about an hour for the total refresh to happen.  I think it's strange too. Rlevse 00:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. First of all, the style does not conform to the layout given at WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Featuring an article that doesn't follow a WikiProject's guidelines defeats the purpose of the WikiProject &mdash; besides, the WP:AIR format is easier to read. The "Specifications" and "Design" sections should not come before the main body of the article; if I were to skip the lists, as many readers do, by the time I got to "Project history" I would have passed over half the article! A good article will keep be top-heavy with prose, keeping any listy stuff at the end; some of that information could also be reformatted as prose. Also, the title "International participation" is used for both a section at the top and a subsection near the end; is the info in them related, and should they be merged, or does one need a new title? -- keep sleep ing   sleeper   cell  01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The Wikiproject Aircraft is something I was not aware of. As for layout, yes it needs to be reworked, I will fix it when I have time. The F/A-18 article was an example for layout; using a USN layout for an aircraft seems to be an unneccessary comparison. It may not be featured article yet then; I will fix it and then say when it is more ready to be a FAC. --The1exile 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that I have time to read about WP:AIR in detail, I find problems for it; the layout is evidently designed for past or current aircraft, rather than future fifth generation fighters like the F-35. About the section at the top; it shows theorised partners and minor disagreements and their reasons; the section at the bottom is bigger and is almost exclusively about British and Australian discontent; the first section is short enough to be an introduction, while the last is long enough to be read after interest is sustained. If they are merged then the information becomes long enough to become patently unreadable. --The1exile 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Object The "Non-vehicle differentiator" section reads like incomprehensible jargon ("The ALIS system will also be the gateway for operating units to tie into the JSF global supply network. ALIS also will provide a wide variety of global, fleet-wide analysis of supply chain, costs, and vehicle and warfighting and performance. ALIS will also interact with legacy government systems.").

What does that mean? I don't know - it reads like vaporous propaganda. Until that section explains what ALIS actually does in a way the average person can understand, I don't think this should be a featured article.

130.164.79.248 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment A couple of comments:
 * the section on the Australian debate on the F-35, while interesting and worth including, seems to be over-long and rambling should be tightened. In addition, quoting Karlo Copp's views at length is somewhat risky as he tends to be on the fringe of the Australian defence establishment and is noted for exagerating the air threat to Australia and what Australia needs to do in response to this threat. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's analysis of the F-35 at http://www.aspi.org.au/15690bigdeal/index.html is probably more worthy of attention.
 * In the section on 'USAF STOVL Purchase' it is stated that However, due to opposition from people involved with the program, and the associated cost of developing a fourth variant, the USAF version would likely be identical to the USMC/RN F-35B specification. Who are these 'people'?--Nick Dowling 11:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support I would support this article if the above points were adressed. It is well written, NPOV and cites sources and references well, but the length of some sections needs to be improved. Rewrite the Australian debate section, and you've got my vote. BTW, I know some people use this PC to vandalise Wikipedia, but I can only hope that the morons who do so stop soon. Disadvantage of a public computer. --212.85.15.74 13:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Any more problems? I have combed through the article, but even todays featured article had an obvious problem with the links (which I corrected). If this is the current standard of featured article, then why not vote this one in? --The1exile 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)