Talk:Grumman XTSF

Grumman XTSF 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
Date	Process	Result
June 3, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 15, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Grumman XTSF was the only aircraft design ever designated as a torpedo scout by the U.S. Navy?

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grumman XTSF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Resolve the awkward wording about the size increases.
Should be better now, I hope? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:
Add the location of the publisher to those references that don't have it already.
Done. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
This is still pretty thin, but I can't see much else to add.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]