Talk:Lockheed F-104 Starfighter/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing we need to do is bring the article up to B class. That means we need references for:

Second paragraph of "Armament"
Done. Could not verify this in any of my offline sources or with anything I could find online, so I have removed it.
Second paragraph of "Berlin Crisis of 1961"
Done.
First paragraph of "Other international service"
Done.
First paragraph of "Use as space launch platform"
Done, though I would be okay with simply removing this paragraph as well if that would be preferable.
First paragraph of "Flying characteristics"
Done. Modified as needed, and removed what I could not verify.
QF-104A, F-104B, F-104C, F-104DJ, F-104F, RF-104G, TF-104G, F-104H, F-104N, F-104S-ASA/M, CF-104 and CF-104D sections of "Variants"
Done. Also noticed that the F-104G and F-104J sections needed references and included them as well.
First paragraph of "Aircraft on display"
Done.
Several of the "Nicknames"
Done. Removed what I could not verify and added the backstory I found on the most common nickname.

The "Notable appearances in media" section is empty. Do we need it?

More to come Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work on obtaining the listed references. Regarding the Notable appearances in media section, I'm happy to remove it, but that's how the WikiProject Aircraft content guide says to construct it if there is a corresponding section at Aircraft in fiction (see WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Notable appearances in media). CThomas³ (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have overlooked it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. No. I purposefully left it blank after moving all of the existing content to Aircraft in fiction a while back. CThomas³ (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm now finished with all of the references; if I'm missed any, or if you need me to clarify anything or provide any additional details, I'm happy to take care of it. Please also let me know if there's anything else I need to add or clean up with respect to any of the other criteria. CThomas³ (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Happy to keep the review on hold for an extended period.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: