Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Previously submitted, not a self-nom. Archived here, nice front page article --PopUpPirate 00:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --
Mac Davis ☢ ญƛ. 09:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) - Comment the internet sites used as references need to be cited correctly. AndyZ 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Will nosey when I've had some kip, cheers --PopUpPirate 00:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- References fixed. --PopUpPirate 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Ingoolemo, article can still be improved. But much better than last nom; new media section w/video, reworked references, arrangement is better, some new writing... --Duk 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- (fixed)
article needs some work, some rough spots. For example see the Design section, almost nothing there, AND SINCE WHEN DO WE WRITE ARTICLES IN ALL CAPS? Some of the references are dead links.--Duk 11:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Capitals fixed, references fixed. --PopUpPirate 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Design section reworked, must say it looks better now! --PopUpPirate 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Phew, I thought I had missed the page on FAC again. Thankfully, this is not the case. It looks good, I like the reformatting and the page content. Good job! TomStar81 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I submitted it last time, glad to see more supports this time around. I will also point out this FAC on WP:Air, may as well advertise it. --The1exile 16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The Australian controversy receives too much undue attention—which was noted in the last FAC. Also, this article still needs a bit of polishing, though those details aren't sufficient to make or break the promotion. Nevertheless, it's a very impressive article. Ingoolemo talk 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)- Agreed, fixed --PopUpPirate 08:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support The article still needs some polishing, but not enough to stop its promotion to Featured status. Ingoolemo talk 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object - the design section begins with a list, which is unacceptable. Also, that section consists of a big chunk of text and then one relatively short subsection; couldn't this be fixed? In addition, I'd like to see more in-line notes for the specifications you provide for the plane. Finally, the "Armament" section could also be changed to prose, instead of using a bulleted list. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
