Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC).

McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This article describes the service history of a variant of the famous Douglas A-4 Skyhawk fighter jet operated by the Royal Australian Navy and Royal New Zealand Air Force between 1967 and 1991. Twenty of these aircraft were built for the RAN, which operated them from its only aircraft carrier. Half of the A-4Gs were destroyed in accidents (killing two pilots) before the type was retired by Australia in 1984. The survivors were sold to the RNZAF, which subsequently upgraded and redesignated them as part of a program which was completed in 1991. Two of the former Australian aircraft were lost in crashes in 2001 (killing a pilot), shortly before the disbandment of the RNZAF's fighter force.

This article was assessed as a GA in April, and passed a military History Wikiproject A-class review yesterday. As I've exhausted the literature on this aircraft type and have further copy edited the prose, I think that it should also meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done
 * "Accidents" caption should end in period
 * Fixed
 * New Zealand Herald or The New Zealand Herald?
 * Fixed (it's the latter)
 * Compare location for Eather and Wilson. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for these comments Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. I ran through the article looking for prose problems, and didn't find many. My brief review can be found on the talk page. Fine work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review. I'm writing copyediting software, so if my suggested changes doen't seem like improvements, I'd really appreciate feedback from writers and reviewers: - Dank (push to talk)
 * "The RAN operated a total of 20 A-4Gs between 1967 and 1984, the aircraft being delivered in two batches of ten during 1967 and 1971.": One possibility: The RAN received ten A-4Gs in 1967 and another ten in 1971, and operated these aircraft from 1967 to 1984. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, but I've tweaked this a bit so that the last part of the sentence reads "and operated the type from 1967 to 1984" given that there was only a short period where all 20 were operational due to the high loss rate. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Ten A-4Gs were destroyed as a result of accidents": "In" would be better than "as a result of" if true, and "accidents" is a little vague. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to 'in'. Given the surprisingly large number of ways the RAN managed to write off the ten aircraft, 'accidents' seems the clearest term, as all the losses were accidental (eg, none were destroyed in combat or as a result of deliberate actions). I've just played around with some options to summarise this in a sentence, but the results were pretty clunky (eg, "Ten A-4Gs were destroyed as a result of mechanical faults, pilot error, failure of equipment on board Melbourne and a deck handling accident"). Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My sense of the word "accident" may be different than yours ... I think it means both more and less than what's needed here. For instance, if I told you my grandfather died in or because of an accident, I don't think that "equipment malfunction" is what would come to mind. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there some lead-friendly alternate wording you could suggest here? I take your point, but I can't think of a non-clunky way of summarising this into a shortish sentence. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the word "crash" when it's accurate, and it's accurate here (in 4 cases), so I'd say they were lost through equipment failures and in non-combat crashes. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that suggestion: I've just added it. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. 'hump': double quotes.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Oberon class submarines": hyphen.
 * That isn't Australian English usage (see, for example), so I'm reluctant to make this change. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuing.
 * "In the event": Please avoid this; few Americans know that it means "As it happened" or "In fact".
 * I think that this is the standard Australian term; the other options look a bit odd to me. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain to me what's going on here, because I don't understand. Do you agree that around 2/3 of the world's English-speakers are more familiar with AmEng than BritEng (I know, we're talking about AusEng here, but when conflicts erupt, they seem to erupt between AmEng and BritEng ... perhaps Australians and Canadians are more relaxed about these issues), and that almost all of these people will think that you're talking about some "event" here, because they're not familiar with the expression? If so, why keep the expression? - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dank, I don't get what you're driving at here. The alternatives you suggest look as odd to me as what you say 'in the event' does to you I'm afraid ('as it happened' is used mainly in a laconic way, and 'in fact' is normally used to correct misunderstandings and doesn't have the right meaning here). 'In the event' is formal, and is often used to note when an anticipated event doesn't actually take place. I'd like to use 'However', but people will complain about that as well ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Are you saying that you believe most English-speakers will understand the phrase? We can find out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 'buddy', 'dumb': "buddy", etc.
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "This aircraft will be displayed": Something more specific is needed; say what there is (such as a signed agreement regarding the display), rather than what someone thinks will happen.
 * I thought that this was very specific - the NZ Government returned the aircraft for display in Australia per the 1984 original contract (as noted earlier in the article), and this will happen. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could say that the plane was provided "for display", for instance. That's something that has actually happened ... someone gave the plane to someone else, intending that it be displayed ... rather than something that hasn't happened yet. If you prefer to talk about a future event, then you could say, "The RAN's Fleet Air Arm Museum has scheduled it for display in (date)", which has the effect of attributing this prediction to the museum staff, rather than putting the prediction in your voice. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "maneouevre": sp - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Dank Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support -- Recusing myself from delegate duties, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist ACR and, checking/tweaking the alterations since then, I believe it also meets the FAC criteria. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.