Talk:Vought F6U Pirate

Vought F6U Pirate 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
March 31, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

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

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
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

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.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vought F6U Pirate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –Grondemar 21:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, while short, is close to meeting the Good Article criteria. I made some copyedits throughout the article; please review to ensure I did not change the meaning or stray too far from offline sources I couldn't access. Please also review and comment on the following concerns:

I added a link to afterburner in the lead since the inclusion of the afterburner seems to have been a key addition to this aircraft; is there an appropriate article on the use of composite materials in aircraft that composite material construction could link to?
- Composite construction is the closest that I can come to.
~~Second paragraph of Design and development needs at least one citation at the end of the paragraph, and more if applicable.~~
- Indeed it does.
"Flight testing revealed severe aerodynamic problems, mostly caused by the airfoil section and thickness of the wing, but the vertical stabilizer had to be redesigned to smooth out the airflow at the intersection of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers." But doesn't sound right here; perhaps this would work better as two sentences if the two thoughts aren't closely connected?
- Agreed. See how it reads now.
  - Perfect, thanks! –Grondemar 01:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a redlink for Texas Naval Reserve; is there a more appropriate article this could link to?
- Just the general Naval Reserve article.
  - I noticed that links to a disambiguation page; should we use the more-specific United States Navy Reserve article, or is the Texas Naval Reserve something else? –Grondemar 01:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've clarified the link as you suggested and added "Texas-based".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This GAN is placed on hold pending resolution of the above concerns.

Thank you. –Grondemar 21:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! We're close but I still have one open concern above. –Grondemar 01:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now. I will now

pass this article as a Good Article. Congratulations! –Grondemar 01:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]