Talk:JF-17 Thunder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
 |
JF-17 Thunder is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Minor fixes
Just added more details fixed minor defects User:Ali 786 all the info on the plane is wrong [[[User:202.138.120.65|202.138.120.65]] 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Go Around making models be it JF-17 Thunder or LCA. Both look promising oon paper. But war-experience is one thing of which the pilots should be wary of. JF-17 is the rejected MiG-29 design, clearly evident by the swept wings and tails just in the angles of MiG-29. Its just a toy.202.138.120.65 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)]
[edit] Links in headings
Per MOS (headings):
- Avoid links within headings. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the heading.
- BillCJ 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Specifications
Just a note on Powerplant specs: The space there isn't really designed for extended comments, such as that on thrust-vectoring. THere isn't a section in the text on Engines/Powerplants as yet. Maybe one should be creaed and the extra info placed there. I don't know if the current editors have plans for a section on this, but it's worth considering. - BillCJ 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citing Sources
Wow, what an interesting article! Someone put a lot of time into putting all this together. Unfortunately, the information is not cited. Please read wp:cite and choose a method of referencing the text. Otherwise, great article! Alan.ca 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea look at the "Ground maintenance equipment" section, its full of BS thats not even cited. Large portions of this article is dedicated for other planes
- A lot of that stuff reads like an advertisement. Cleanup desperatly needed! - Aerobird 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
