Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hawker Siddeley P.1154


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawker Siddeley P.1154

 * Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil © • ©

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel the article is in good shape, and is ready to take the next step. I feel it is as good as the Northrop YF-23 and McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, two successful ACRs of mine that went on to become FAs. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments: An interesting aircraft. Some bits are worth explaining further for the non-specialist:
 * "plenum chamber burning" - worth linking or footnoting, as I've no idea what this is! :)
 * ✅ Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "as to preserve the commonality concept" - ditto: it's in the lead but won't make much sense to the non-specialist.
 * ✅ clarified by Ian. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "With the Labour government coming to power in 1965," - do you mean "Due to the..."?
 * ✅ Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "that supersonic aircraft hold significantly more value than subsonic aircraft" "held"? Also, has this view changed?
 * ✅ This view hasn't changed. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it worth placing this aircraft development against the context of the Cold War and the likely adversary?
 * Well, the books didn't mention anything about the Cold War. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "a Pegasus development" - Pegasus? Worth linking or explaining.
 * ✅ Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "NATO Basic Military Requirement 3" - ditto. Is this the specification that then follows, or something different?
 * The project started as an inhouse project before NATO issued the BMR-3. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "a dash speed " - ditto. I think I know what this is, but wouldn't be certain I'm right.
 * "principle competitor" - "principal"?
 * ✅ Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * " 'unsound'" - the MOS would prefer double speechmarks
 * ✅ Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the biblio, the ISBN numbers are inconsistently hypthenated.
 * Hmm, the second publication doesn't have an ISBN that starts with "1" that I know of. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wood 1975, p. 252 needs a final full stop to be consistent with the other fns.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, I think I've just happened to have actioned some of these with my usual copyedit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Lead looks really long.
 * Is the use of numbers consistent? Not sure the policy and if that should be 50% or fifty per cent.
 * Images have no alt text. :( Help our friends with screen readers out. :)
 * Why are the Planform silhouettes located there? What are they attempting to illustrate? Unclear to me. --LauraHale (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments -- Looks pretty good to me so far but still have to go through refs and images. Prose-wise, aside from my quick copyedit, a few things:
 * On 6 December 1961, before the design was submitted to NATO, it was decided that the P.1154 would be developed with the requirements for use by both the RAF and the Royal Navy. -- Be nice to avoid the passive phrasing here; do we know who decided it would try and meet the RAF/RN reqs?
 * Hmm, the books didn't say who decided it. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In February 1962, the Royal Navy's Admiralty received the aircraft concept with great interest, and at the same time the Royal Navy was seeking a new interceptor aircraft for their aircraft carriers -- The expression makes it sound like the Admiralty and the Navy aren't connected; do we mean the Admiralty was interested because the Navy was seeking a new interceptor?
 * ✅ Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Should link or describe AI radar.
 * The book only mentioned the radar only once, and I don't think there's any article on it.
 * Well AI stands for "airborne intercept" (or "interception"), so should say "airborne interception (AI) radar" or something similar. The Lightning had it too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Harrier.org.uk looks more like a useful external link than a reliable source. I can see it provides a bibliography but the books aren't specifically cited -- what claim does it have to reliability as a WP source?
 * Can't confirm that File:Avav8 1 05.png is PD; appears no permission to view source file.

Comments
 * What makes Harrier.org.uk reliable?
 * Add dashes to the ISBN for the Wood book.
 * The aircraft carried no guns or missiles?
 * Cite 14 still needs a full stop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the full stop and ISBN items. I'll try to work on the others. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My Harrier sources do not cover any cost savings mentioned in the sentence cited with Harrier.org.uk. Maybe somebody else can help. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. If you want to go to FAC with this, and maybe even if you don't, I'd recommend rewriting the See also section as a section of text at the end, comparing and contrasting those aircraft to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna blank the section. I don't think the See also section is important enough to take up much of my effort. BTW, this ACR is stalling really badly; maybe the project should compose a substitution message that can be sent to some of the neutral members at WP:MILMEMBERS to ask for their comments at PRs, ACRs and FACs.--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we seem to have a bit if a backlog at ACR again, at least. This one's past the 28-day mark now, and my most recent queries and some of Storm's haven't be answered yet, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll have more discussions about the See also sections, I'm sure. Agreed with Ian; until other reviewers' comments have been addressed, I wouldn't take this to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The FAC delegate recently announced ex cathedra that See Also sections were not allowed in Featured Articles. I see no reason to prohibit them in A class articles though. There was a lively discussion about whether the Projects can override the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Link? (I had to suppress a smile at ex cathedra.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on citations: clear, but Notes:, spacing, "Quote:"At" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jenkins and Wilson appear in the bibliography, but not the references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.