Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II[edit]

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is an Anglo-American development of the first-generation Hawker Siddeley Harrier that is capable of vertical or short take off and landing, or V/STOL. It entered service in the mid-1980s with the US Marine Corps before being exported to Spain and Italy. Like its predecessor, the aircraft has attracted significant attention due to its V/STOL ability and, to a lesser extent, its high-accident rate. With more than 340 examples built, the AV-8B will be replaced by the F-35 Lightning II.

After about 100 hours of research, writing and collaboration with other editors, I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. This FAC is the second after a premature nomination I made in 2011, when the article was sorely lacking in content. With this nomination, I am looking to make the article the 15th FA of WikiProject Aircraft. All comments are welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg: source link isn't working. Same with File:Marine_Corps_TAV-8B_Harrier.jpg, File:McDONNELL_DOUGLAS,_BAe_AV-8B_HARRIER_II.png
  • File:USMC-07516.jpg: source link is dead, tagged as lacking author info. Same with File:USMC-12252.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
In the lead the "UK", presumes that all readers will know its the United Kingdom. Should be in brackets after first use of the full names. Same with USMC as you have done in the origins section.
In that section inconsistency of terms - starts with Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC). Then in the next paragraph its RAF and Marine Harriers.
In the same paragraph - the US was unwilling, same as first point not everyone will know what the "US" refers to.
Numbering - 12 aircraft, 40 percent, RAF, 60 then in the upgrades section we have twenty-eight and later on in the Spanish navy section eleven aircraft.
Not sure this should be in an article about the aircraft seems to be a memorial and off focus "Some of the VMA-211 pilots fought as infantrymen during the raid; the squadron commander, Lieutenant Colonel Chris Raible, 40, was killed while leading an attack on the insurgents, armed only with his pistol. The attack was described as the worst loss of U.S. airpower in a single incident since the Vietnam War." Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly shaky Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Shaky because these are the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class; in the "improved diff", that shows up as a sea of red and green, but I hope I didn't miss anything. These are my edits. Some reviewers will object to "and the latest in July 2013" per WP:DATED. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sturmvogel 66[edit]

Comments (Taken a bit at a time as this is a big article)

  • What does the link of Combined arms have to do with "support of ground troops"? I think the link of close air support suffices.
  • Why is Pegasus 15 italicized on first use? And isn't it missing "the" in front of it?
  • Remove italics. Added the.
  • The engine was more powerful but had a diameter 2.75 in (70 mm) greater, too large to fit into the Harrier easily. Isn't there a missing comma here?
  • Added comma after powerful.
  • Why are you inconsistently italicizing designations on first appearance? YAV-8B, GR.7 forex, but not AV-8B(NA) or GR.5?
  • Italics were present when the designations themselves were discussed. For example, in "the designation GR Mk.7; earlier GR Mk.5", the designation of "GR Mk.7" was talked about, while that of the GR Mk.5 was not. I've replaced all italics with quotation marks for consistency.
  • Why bother even doing that? I don't see a need at all for either italics or quotation marks for aircraft designations. I certainly don't see many used in other aircraft articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed quotation marks.
  • At the time, the USN wanted to procure A-18s to constitute its ground attack force, and so pressured the USMC to adopt the F-18 instead of the AV-8B to fulfill the role of close air support (both designs would eventually be amalgamated to create the F/A-18 Hornet). This is unclear. The reader has no idea what an A-18 is and thus its close relationship with the F-18.
  • Reworded to "At the time, the USN wanted to procure A-18s to constitute its ground attack force, and to cut costs, pressured the USMC to adopt the similarly-designed F-18 fighter instead".
  • Don't like constituted; howzabout a simple "for"? Otherwise, this gets the relationship between the two aircraft backwards; the A-18 was a derivative of the F-18.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • took its maiden flight Never seen this usage before. The common phrasing is "made", not "took".
  • Replaced.
  • (LERX, which are extensions to the root of the wing's leading-edge) If you're not going to use the phrase again, there's no point in giving the abbreviation. And the explanation seems a bit redundant as the actual link title suffices to explain it. But perhaps I'm biased because I already know what they are.
  • The explanation was added after an editor wanted clarification on what the LERX was. Removed initialism and explanation entirely.
  • Is the BuNo for any individual aircraft really worth knowing?
  • I don't see why not.
  • Seems a bit detailed for an enyclopedic article.
  • Link financial year.
  • Linked.
  • 824 variants were delivered This is unclear and should be rephrased to inform the reader that 824 Harriers, of all models, were delivered.
  • Reworded to "824 Harriers of all models were delivered".
  • I haven't heard of any interest by Taiwan in the F-35 recently. Your cite is two years old; is it still current?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated with recent Taiwanese request for F-35.
  • would follow shouldn't this simply be "followed"?

Now for the Design section:

  • The first sentence is inadequate as I'm used to a bit more general description of the aircraft. Forex, from a book on the Westland Wyvern that I just finished: "The Wyvern was a cantilever low-wing monoplane of all-metal, stressed skin construction, fitted with retractable main and tail wheel landing gear plus catapult and holdback attachments and a tail hook." Now that probably should have been split into two sentences, and "single-engined" should have been added somewhere, but that does give a good general description that can be elaborated and explained later on in the section.
  • I've merged the first two sentences and added the fact that the aircraft is of metal and composite construction.
  • Didn't the first generation Harrier have four wing stations, plus a belly hardpoint, plus the cannon mounts on the belly? The wording here is confusing.
  • Reworded.
  • Fuel capacity can be enlarged I found this awkward and too wordy. Just tell the reader that additional fuel can be carried on the hardpoints.
  • Reworded.
  • McDonnell Douglas overhauled how about redesigned instead?
  • Replaced.

Comments from Ian Rose[edit]

Support Comments -- recusing myself from delegate duties for a copyedit and detailed review...

  • "the second aircraft, which crashed in November due to engine flameout" -- I realise the article is pretty detailed but can we record the fate of the pilot?
  • "These modified AV-8s were flight-tested during 1978 and 1979." -- timeline seems off to me since we just said the first one flew in November 1978, didn't we, meaning there wouldn't have been much of 1978 left...? Not sure that this sentence as a whole adds much anyway...

Up to Design, more later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've rephrased the latter sentence as "Flight testing of these modified AV-8s continued into 1979". I don't feel it's entirely redundant, as it leads into the next sentence; the "Positive results in other areas" that lead to the development contract, were specifically positive results in the flight testing mentioned in that sentence. I've clarified this a little. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing where I left off...

  • "deliberately engineered lateral stability" sounds a bit odd to me -- since we're comparing it to the original Harrier, why not "increased [or greater] lateral stability"?
  • Reworded.
  • I feel I should know this as someone reasonably familiar with modern military aircraft but why is "front-fuselage" hyphenated and "rear fuselage" not?
  • Removed hyphen. Sorry for the confusion.
  • General point: not sure of the number formatting standard -- I see "22", "seventeen", "60", "a thousand" -- but perhaps I'm missing something...
  • Converted to numbers.
  • Another general point: "air strikes" or "airstrikes"?
  • Fixed.
  • "Spain did not send its aircraft carrier to participate in the Iraq War in 2003, instead deploying F/A-18s and other support aircraft" -- "other support aircraft" implies the F/A-18 is a support aircraft, so do you mean "close support", or are you referring to some other type of aircraft like transports?

I think that completes the main body, will take a look at other sections in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now to the statistical sections, and assessment criteria in general...

  • "Approximately 117 aircraft have been written off since the type entered service in 1985" -- 117 is a very exact-sounding figure so "approximately" seems odd; obviously this figure is subject to change so assuming it is in fact accurate can we be precise and say "as of July 2013, 117 aircraft have been written off..." (and drop "and the latest in July 2013")?
  • Reworded.
  • Structure of the article seems fine, as does the level of detail.
  • Happy to rely on Nikkimaria's image check, and hope she'll be able to perform one of her patented source reviews as well... ;-)
  • Certainly leaning to support but my review has mainly concentrated on prose/style so will await finalisation of Nick's content queries before declaring -- strong effort in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I think all my points above have been actioned and, aside from a couole of things that I've just copyedited, changes in general since I last reviewed look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "Approximately 340 aircraft were produced" - can a precise figure be given?
  • @Nick-D: The most detailed table I could find regarding production figures was in the Nordeen (2006) book. If you go to Appendix B on page 165, it says that 507 Harrier IIs have been built, including 96 BAE Harrier IIs and 74 remanufactured USMC AV-8Bs. If you take them away from 507 that would leave us with 337. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the RAF's small 60-aircraft requirement" - why did this contribute to the British withdrawal? This wasn't that small a fleet for the British military of the era (from memory, far less Sea Harriers were ordered)
  • I'm not sure. The reference says that. I don't want to pull any strings.
  • The paragraph which starts with "The two companies took different paths toward an enhanced Harrier" is a bit confusing given that the previous para says that the project never really got off the ground
  • Added "Despite the project's termination, the two companies..." Possibly because the requirement was still there? I really don't see this as peculiar at all.
  • "The plan for Harrier II development was authorized by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) in 1976" - why did the US military re-launch the project a couple of years after abandoning it?
  • I can only guess. 1) Like I said above, because the AV-8A would still need to be replaced. 2) Much research had gone into a replacement. The requirement was still there for an improved Harrier, but not at an expected price of the AV-16.
  • Surely there was some explanation at the time? Major defence programs like this need to be explained to congress, etc. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite these political obstacles" - the obstacles described seem to have been more bureaucratic or doctrinal than "political"
  • Replaced.
  • Why did the UK re-enter the program?
  • Added.
  • Was there a link between the development of the Harrier II plus and the similar British Sea Harrier F(A).2?
  • No publication has discussed any links between the two models.
  • Was the development of the later models of the Harrier II influenced by the British combat experience in the Falklands War? (in which the Harriers were hugely successful, but the value of precision weapons and a need for beyond visual range missile capability was made clear)
  • Again, no publication has discussed any links between the two. I would've thought that adding BVRAAMs and the precision weapons would have been a logical step had there been a Falklands or not.
  • "financially sounder" is a bit awkward ("more cost-effective", "cheaper", etc do the job)
  • Replaced.
  • A summary table of the number of aircraft of each variant produced would be great if the data are available
  • Page 165 from Nordeen (2006) does not list out the production number of each variant.
  • "The aircraft returned to Iraq " - it's earlier said that Harriers flew patrols over Iraq from 1992 until 2003, so "returned" doesn't seem right here
  • Reworded.
  • I'd suggest replacing the praise of the Harriers over Iraq from their commanding officers with independent assessments. This book should have good material if you haven't already consulted it.
  • What operations did Harriers conduct over East Timor in 2002? A MEU (presumably with Harriers) provided limited support for the Australian-led intervention in 1999, but I've never seen any suggestion that Harriers were used over the then-Indonesian province (Australia only flew RF-111s on photo recon sorties over East Timor during this period after clearing them with the Indonesian government due to the sensitivities involved - squadrons of F-111s and F/A-18s were on alert at Darwin and RAAF Base Tindal though if things went pear shaped). By 2002 things were pretty calm in East Timor, but the Marines did kick off occasional training exercises in the country at about this time which have involved MEUs. Similarly, are you sure that Harriers operated over Rwanda in 1994?
  • It's unfortunate that no additional details were given regarding the AV-8B's exact roles over East Timor. And yes the Harrier did play a role in Rwanda. Again, not sure of the exact nature. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that the source has either confused 1999 with 2002, or confused an exercise in 2002 with an actual operation. There were no US military operations in East Timor in 2002 (the country was under the protection of a UN force at the time, and so there was no need at all for the US to intervene there). Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the quote, "Harrier IIs also have assisted in many other humanitarian operations in Liberia and the Central African Republic during Operation Assured Response (April-August 1996), Albania during Operation Silver Wolfe (March 1997), Zaire/Congo during Operation Guardian Retrieval, Sierra Leone during Operation Nobel-Obelisk (April-June 1997), and East Timor (2000-2002)". I'll replace the current wording with "2000". --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still pretty sure that reference is mistaken. East Timor was pretty quiet by 2000, and the US did not contribute forces to the peacekeeping force there. The force was Australian-led and no Australian jets were operating over East Timor at this time as there was no need for them. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that the report that the ex-British aircraft were to be pressed into service with the Marines has been comprehensively discredited, and I'd suggest removing this (it seemed to be wishful thinking from a British writer rather than something which made military sense given that the USMC would have to spend a lot of money to modify the aircraft to be fully compatible with its standards)
  • I wouldn't remove it. I would've guess that it would cost what? $200 million to upgrade the systems, and given the attrition rate of the Harrier II, I don't see plans to induct the British aircraft into the US military as illogical at all. I would keep that paragraph. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did any other writers regard the Air Forces Monthly article as credible? Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most likely not. I have trimmed most of the details and merged the paragraph with the one above it. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • The description of the role of the Italian aircraft in Libya is focused on them having "conducted intelligence and reconnaissance sorties over Libya, using the LITENING targeting pods while armed with AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-9 Sidewinders", but it's later noted that they also dropped a lot of bombs: did they also operate in a strike role?
  • Flightglobal does not talk about strike missions, while Defense News does. Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the Spanish aircraft, you should probably note that Príncipe de Asturias was retired early in 2013 and they now operate from the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) (it would be worth looking for information on whether Spain's financial crisis has effected their flying hours and the plans to eventually replace them with F-35s). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed, and I'm pleased to support the promotion of this fine article. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher and location for periodicals
  • Be consistent in whether you include UK for London. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support (having stumbled from my own FAC at Typhoon Maemi)

  • "The project that eventually gave rise to the AV-8B" - not sure if "gave rise" is the best choice of words here. Perhaps "...eventually led to the AV-8B's creation"?
  • "While retaining the general layout of its predecessor, the aircraft incorporates a new wing" - given that it was only produced until 2003, should that be past-tense?
  • I don't think so. I mean, the aircraft is still in service, and is still relevant. For comparison, Panavia Tornado uses present tense even though it has been out of production for 15 years.
  • " Since corporate mergers in the 1990s, Boeing and BAE Systems have jointly supported the program. " - "since" is a weak word here. Perhaps use "after" or "due to"?
  • Reworded.
  • "AV-8Bs have participated in numerous conflicts and humanitarian operations" - to get some parallelism, perhaps say "have participated in numerous military and humanitarian operations"? I think it'd read better
  • Reworded.
  • "American and Italian AV-8Bs are to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, with the USMC expected to operate its Harriers until at least 2030." - I thought "American" and "USMC" were the same here?
  • Reworded to "USMC and Italian Navy AV-8Bs are to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, with the former expected to". --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the first-generation Harriers entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC), it became increasingly apparent that they were handicapped in range and payload." - it became apparent to whom? I think the sentence should be reordered to something like, "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the first-generation Harriers entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC), but were handicapped in range and payload." I think it's cleaner that way.
  • Reworded.
  • "The engine was more powerful, but had a diameter 2.75 in (70 mm) greater, too large to fit into the Harrier easily." - kinda weird sentence structure. "Although more powerful, the engine's diameter was 2.75 in (70 mm) too large to fit into the Harrier easily."
  • Reworded.
  • What does "the RAF's small 60-aircraft requirement" mean?
  • Replaced small with insufficient.
  • "The United States Navy (USN), which has traditionally procured military aircraft for the USMC" - why present tense?
  • Changed tense.
  • Why did the DoD add the Harrier into their five year budget in 1981? That's a pretty key event. Is it anything to do with Ronald Reagan becoming president and increasing military spending?
  • "400 Harrier IIs, with the USMC expected to procure 336 aircraft and the RAF, 60" - who got the remaining four? Is that "Four full-scale development (FSD) aircraft were constructed"? If so, no need to do anything here.
  • Yes indeed.
  • "to rebuild aircraft at a lower cost than new-built aircraft" - can you find a way to cut on redundancy?
  • Reworded to "rebuild aircraft at a lower cost than manufacturing new ones."
  • Done.
  • " 31 August 1984 to 30 March 1985" - is there a reason you use British dating, given that the article is largely about an American aircraft (isn't it?)
  • Altered throughout.
  • "The AV-8B saw extensive action in the Gulf War of 1990–91" - was it used in any earlier skirmishes? Or is this the first one? If the latter, maybe indicate that? (if you get a source to say that was the first)
  • See below.
  • "On the morning of 17 January 1991, a call for air support from an OV-10 Bronco forward air controller against Iraqi artillery that was shelling Khafji and an adjacent oil refinery, brought the AV-8B into combat for the first time" - this sentence could be clearer. Maybe say [AV-8B was first used in combat on the morning of 17 January 1991, when..." or something
  • Reworded.
  • What is "85 percent aircraft availability record" mean?
  • Do you have any stance whether to use "East Timor" or "Timor-Leste"?

All in all, a pretty good article. I was thinking, it might be good to emphasize a little earlier some of the flaws, such as the long takeoff time in the "Design" section? That way it doesn't seem biased in favor of it being awesome. :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fly past support
    • In early 1989 the law was changed to allow the navy to operate any aircraft with a maximum weight of over 3,300 lb (1,500 kg) This sounds very weird. can you verify that it is correct?
  • @Hawkeye7: Here's a quote from Nordeen 2006, "At first the Italian navy was restricted by a 1937 law to flying only light aircraft and helicopters. Until this law was overturned in 1 989, there was no way to arm the Giuseppe Garibaldi with a new fighter." I don't have access to Wilson 2000 atm to verify the weight, but I'm sure it was from that source. It was weird when I heard it as well. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation required on the last paragraph of Spanish Navy.

Well done Speedy Phil! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell[edit]

This is a strong candidate. The writing is of a professional standard, the article is well-organized, the lead correctly summarizes the article, and the sourcing is great. The article has a few MoS problems involving commas that most FACs have:

  • A few places in the article use the serial comma (e.g. "a redesigned fuselage, one extra hardpoint per wing, and other structural and aerodynamic refinements"), but most other places omit it (e.g. "the United States Marine Corps (USMC), the Spanish Navy and the Italian Navy"). MOS:SERIAL says "Editors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself."
  • Per MOS:COMMA, when a date is formatted as "November 9, 1978", the year is acting as a parenthetic, and needs a comma after it as well as before it (unless it ends the sentece). This is a problem for several dates in this article.
Thanks, I shall go over it with my trusty fine-toothed comb soon. – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combed. You got damn near everything. I fixed the last few stragglers. – Quadell (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond those common problems, I've identified a few issues in the text.

  • Is "the withdrawal of the UK" an accurate phrasing? I wouldn't say they withdrew from a plane.
  • I don't see anything wrong with it. They withdrew from an aircraft project. Could you clarify your point? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The remainder of the sentence discusses McDonnell Douglas redesiging the AV-8A Harrier, so when I read the paragraph in isolation, the phrase seemed like a misplaced modifier. But in the preceding paragraph, it's clearly the project that was discussed, so I don't suppose it's an issue. – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote "widow maker" needs a clear and direct source, both in the "United States Marine Corps" section and the "Incidents and accidents" section.
  • I've move the reference in "Incidents and accidents" and added quotes from the articles to the references. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. This is one of those cases where I think a link to a dab is warranted. – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Incidents and accidents", I don't know what "written off" means.
    • It comes from write-off and is quite a common term in Commonwealth countries, effectively meaning "totaled" in this case, but if it's more unusual in the US (since this article is using US English) then perhaps it could be altered... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with a tax write-off, but I would not have guessed "written off" meant something like "totaled". If there exists an accurate and clear rewording, it would certainly help U.S.-based reader know what the article is saying. – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Quadell: I've replaced it with "damaged beyond repair" and kept the wikilink. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe the "Aircraft on display" section is notable enough to be mentioned in an article of this size. (I could be convinced otherwise, though.)
    • FWIW, pretty sure this is a commonly employed section in such WP articles, including some other military aircraft FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's not uncommon in aircraft FAs, that's fine. – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Specifications" section, the ref line in {{Aircraft specifications}} lists "Nordeen, Boeing Airforce-technology.com". You'll need either a comma or an "and" after "Boeing" (or both, if you choose to use the serial comma).
  • Also in "Specifications", I think the note at the bottom ("An upgrade program is currently...") should be an actual footnote.
  • I've removed the note altogether because Googling yielded results from the ten years ago, so the program is not exactly taking place currently. It is not a notable issue anyway. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you cite the "See also" list?
Ah, I see, it sure was. It's unusual to cite a "see also" section, but I do see the reasoning behind it, and there's nothing in the MoS against it, so that's fine. (It is good to see a "see also" section so narrowly focused.) – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add issues here as I find them. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After reading it over again, I'm impressed with the organization of the article and the clarity of the prose. Any final nitpicks would be easier for me to fix myself than bring up here. I think it's fully ready. – Quadell (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sp33dyphil. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II/archive2&oldid=588792785"