Talk:Avro Canada CF-103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAvro Canada CF-103 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 24, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that design work on the Avro Canada CF-103 began before the aircraft it was supposed to replace entered service?

Dubious information[edit]

This article is an example of finding information on the Internet without considering the source or verifying the information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the joys of open editing! Par for the course. - BilCat (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For fun, compare the first entry with the article at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
It was a real crud puppy, wasn't it? Now though I'm seriously pondering submitting it for GA! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The complex interplay of company and military served to doom the project from the outset, not unlike the tragic melodrama still to come with the rise and fall of the Avro Arrow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Avro Canada CF-103/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Fix the small problem with "coupled" noted by the awkward tag. Might do well to break up that long sentence.
Fixed. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Would do well to describe the structure in more detail. Is it pretty much the same as the CF-100?
Added detail explaining the airframe fuselage structure was essentially the same but wing and tail surfaces had major alterations.Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  5. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Failed, no response from editor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the changes were made but didn't know a response was necessary. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Avro Canada CF-103/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

When this article came up for GAN before, there was only one concern with the article, and it was addressed, however the article was failed essentially due to a procedural mix-up. The quibble having been addressed, it should, I believe, be reconsidered, as it should easily pass now, I think. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 01:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avro_Canada_CF-103&oldid=1205537748"