| Revision as of 00:52, 25 May 2006 editDCB4W (talk | contribs)1,163 editsm →[]: I made a formatting error.← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:42, 26 May 2006 edit undoSpangineer (talk | contribs)Administrators16,440 edits →[]: object; commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| *'''Support''', having corrected a typo. ] 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Support''', having corrected a typo. ] 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *Nice article, but I '''object''' until formatting and a few other issues are fixed. This should use subsections, but not as many subsections as you have bold headers. In the first level 2 section, use perhaps "Origins", "Testing and production", and "Records". Also, no bold outside of the first sentence of the lead please. Citations follow punctuation,<sup></sup> like this.<sup></sup> As for units, I've fixed the lead to comply with WP:MoS, try to make the rest similar (abbreviate only the conversion, and use &nbsp; between the number and the abbreviation). "Contemporary United States dollars" needs to be defined (what year was the book published that says those numbers?). Also, the F-4 in fiction section is lackluster; anything to add there or can it just be removed? --]<sup>]]</sup> <small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 12:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:42, 26 May 2006
F-4 Phantom II
Considerably rewritten and expanded, addressing all concerns raised in the Peer Review and previous FAC attempt and more. A detailed overview of history and service of this Cold War icon. This is a self-nom of sorts as I am the primary contributor to the current revision. - Emt147 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Support, a great article on great fighter. Just two points from me:
- Is it possible to have a table of contents please? Those list-like entries are kinda creepy :)
- I would appreciate a section/paragraph/whatever on the Wild Weasel variant. If memory serves, these aircraft were completely "undressed" and modified in order to be converted. Plus, it is a role which is slightly different.
- I'm not convinced by "comparable aircraft"... Mig-21 is 2 times lighter and much smaller than the F-4, so while they may fulfill similar roles (just as all fighters do, they're not really in the same category). Just a thought, maybe I'm wrong so I don't insist :)
Overall, a great article worthy of FA! -- Grafikm 10:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I went to the list-like entries because the TOC was gigantic. I think this is much tidier. The Wild Weasel is discussed briefly in the Gulf War section and I made it a separate bullet in the variants summary. All variants are covered in more detail in F-4 Phantom II variants. In truth, there was nothing directly comparable to the Phantom when it came out. MiG-21 and EE Lightning were the closest in mission and performance. - Emt147 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor object:
- The "Operators" section is redundant with the entire "Phantom in foreign service" section, no? I can't see any reason to give the same list of countries twice.
- Footnote 6 seems misplaced. I'm assuming it's meant to apply to the entire section; but footnotes are usually placed after the relevant material.
Other than that, great article! Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have corrected both issues. Thanks! - Emt147 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great, support from me now! Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have corrected both issues. Thanks! - Emt147 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Fine article. Rlevse 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, having corrected a typo. DCB4W 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nice article, but I object until formatting and a few other issues are fixed. This should use subsections, but not as many subsections as you have bold headers. In the first level 2 section, use perhaps "Origins", "Testing and production", and "Records". Also, no bold outside of the first sentence of the lead please. Citations follow punctuation, like this. As for units, I've fixed the lead to comply with WP:MoS, try to make the rest similar (abbreviate only the conversion, and use between the number and the abbreviation). "Contemporary United States dollars" needs to be defined (what year was the book published that says those numbers?). Also, the F-4 in fiction section is lackluster; anything to add there or can it just be removed? --Spangineer (háblame) 12:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)