Talk:Romanian Land Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Romanian Land Forces has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Eurocopter tigre (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Jews in the Army

The section on Post World War I says Jews were allowed to serve in the Armed forces before Antonescu took power.

This implies that the situation changed under Antonescu - but this is not stated at all.

Maybe it was stated, but subsequent editing deleted it. I don't know - this is not an area where I have any knowledge, but there's no need to drag any group into the story without a good reason.

[edit] Humvees

It would be interesting to know more about current Romanian Army equipment, like jeeps, AV, tanks, light armament etc. For example, on the Humvee page it says that Romania are users of HUMVEEs - is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.84.210 (talk • contribs)

Yep, they have 8 of them. HAHAHA!!! No but seriously, it seems that ze Amyerikans will give them a few more. I think they signed a contract to buy about 50 or 100 of them (I am not quite sure). Dapiks 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The Humvees were given to the Romanian Military Police by the US Government, according to this article: Humvee pentru Poliţia Militară (Humvee for the Military Police), Ziua, November 13, 2006 (only in Romanian). Mentatus 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Check also this link out: http://www.mapn.ro/fotodb/20061113 Mentatus 11:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranks

I may be wrong, but OF-7, OF-8 and OF-9 are not named “General-maior”, “General-locotenent” and “General” anymore. They're “General de divizie”, “General de corp de armată” and “General de armată” respectively. Also, as far as I know, there is an equivalent to OF-1o and that's “Mareşal”, although nobody has that rank at the moment (and very few people had it throughout romanian history). 86.125.112.87 15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're partially right, the General ranks were named like that but only until 2001, when the Government Ordinance 90/2001 modified the Law regarding the Status of Military Personnel (80/1995), 2nd article:
"Gradele cadrelor militare în ordinea lor ierarhică în Ministerul Apărării Naţionale sunt:
[...]
c) generali şi amirali:
- general de brigadă- cu o stea, respectiv general de flotilă aeriană - cu o stea, pentru cei din arma aviaţie şi contraamiral de flotilă - cu o stea, pentru cei din arma marină;
- general-maior - cu două stele, respectiv contra-amiral - cu două stele, pentru cei din arma marină;
- general-locotenent - cu trei stele, respectiv viceamiral - cu trei stele, pentru cei din arma marină;
- general - cu patru stele, respectiv amiral - cu patru stele, pentru cei din arma marină."
The Marshal rank is mentioned in the Law 80/1995, at the end of the 2nd article: "În afara acestor grade, pentru merite militare excepţionale, în timp de război, Preşedintele României poate acorda generalilor de armată gradul de mareşal, care este cel mai înalt grad militar", so it is only a wartime rank. However, this paragraph is not mentioned in the Government Ordinance 90/2001, so I'm not sure it is still valid. On the other hand, there is no Marshal rank insignia displayed on the Romanian Ministry of Defense website (see http://www.mapn.ro/fotodb/album25 or http://www.mapn.ro/download/grade.pdf), that's why I didn't add it to the template. Mentatus 10:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for clarifying that. 86.125.101.118 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic of the Army Structure

I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. French Army; German Army; Italian Army I also want to make a graphic of the structure of the Romanian Land Forces, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information how the units are structured (i.e. What Regiments/Batallions belong to which Divisions/Brigades, what type the units are; and so on) Does anyone have this information- and also the Regiments/Battalions names and/or numbers and where they are based? Thanks noclador

[edit] Good article

I see some huge potential for this article to become a good article or maybe a featured article. If anyone is interested to help, please don't hesitate. The history sections need a little attention and the current structure needs to be completed. Eurocopter tigre 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also equipment and training sections should be a little expanded and a summary is needed for the ranks and insignia section. Eurocopter tigre 20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we remove the subordinated units from the brigades who currently have their own article? I think the structure section is becoming to long and boring. Please note that if we remove those subordinated units we may have insufficient space for all the images - and a gallery section would be created. Any thoughts? Eurocopter tigre 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO all units below brigade level should be removed. They are already covered in each brigade article as you said and in the organization chart. BTW, pics size should be left unspecified according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. --Victor12 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest to keep them on the main page for now and at a latter time (when the article gets even longer) move them to their own article, as we did with the French Army. noclador 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] current structure

I finished removing the subordinated units and reorganizing all the strucuture. If you have any better ideas regarding the format please don't hesitate to tell me. Eurocopter tigre 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks better now. Perhaps you can move Joint HQ (operations and logistics) to the top of the section instead of the bottom. Also pics size should be left unspecified according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. --Victor12 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that if I'll move it at the top I'll screw-up everything. Could you please do it? Eurocopter tigre 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I made an update to the Graphic of the Romanian Army structure; but I have some questions to further refine the graphic:
  • 282nd Mechanized Brigade: As the image shows, it has TR-85M1 tanks- are they part of 280th Infantry Battalion or is there a Tank Battalion in the Brigade too?
  • 15th Mechanized Brigade: I added the symbols for the units that were mentioned in the article; does someone know the names and dislocations of these units? The same applies to the 61st Mountain Troops Brigade.
I will update the graphic every other day, as long as new information about the Brigades is posted.
By the way: excellent work Eurocopter tigre, this is really becoming an fantastic article! How you reorganized the Brigade listing is also very good and I will tranfer this approach to my pet article (Italian Army) soon too.Keep up the good work, noclador 21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the Romanian Land Forces has exclusive tank units. Those tanks could belong to a mechanized btn. or to a mechanized infantry btn. Regarding the brigades of the 4th territorial army corps, I couldn't find much infos about their structure, btn. names and dislocations. Also, I couldn't find any infos about subordinated units of the 69th Mixed Artillery Brigade.
Thanks Noclador, I told you I'll do my best, anyway there's still a lot of work to do. Eurocopter tigre 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I requested this article to be peer reviewed, so maybe you would like to leave some comments. Eurocopter tigre 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking good. My feeling though is that we need more text (narrative, if you wish) to counterbalance and provide more context for the excellent graphics and visuals. By the way, in the related articles on either 2nd Mountain Troops Brigade (Romania) or Vânători de Munte, I could add some historical context that I put in the article on Mihail Lascăr when I started it a couple of months ago. Any thoughts on that? Turgidson 00:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great, anything that will expand this article or the articles about the brigades is welcome. Eurocopter tigre 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] To do list

  • expand history section (especially WWI) - it would be good if anybody could provide some sources;
  • expand equipment section - 1. describe the new acquisitions and the native made equipment; 2. make a small chart (see the one in the Russian Ground Forces article);
  • expand training section - describe better the training ranges and military schools (including a short history summary);
  • complete the summary in the Ranks and insignia section;
  • provide more references (always welcome)

Eurocopter tigre 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nominee

I reviewed many times this page, I compared it with some 'Good Articles' and I realised that it might become a GA article. Eurocopter tigre 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


I have reviewed this article in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. --Eurocopter tigre 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurocopter tigre, according to the guidelines set by Wikipedia:Good article candidates Choose an article to review, noting you cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it. I don't think you can pass an article you are so involved with as this constitutes a case of conflict of interest. --Victor12 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Victor 12, the GA review process is a very, very slow one (there are unreviewed GA nominalized articles since March 2007), and frankly, very few users are contributing to this page - if I'll wait for other users to do this, the article would probably never become a GA. If you think this article is not meeting the GA criterias and I listed it abusive, please feel free to revert my edits and delist it. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Even so, it is not elegant, to say the least, to promote an article which you have so heavily edited. If you want to help with the GAC process you can review another article as is proposed in the intro to Wikipedia:Good article candidates. Anyway, Romanian Land Forces is now under GA review. Greetings, --Victor12 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
However, I see no point continuing editing this article if it isn't promoted. At least you could leave a comment at the GA review. --Eurocopter tigre 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

I've asked for a review of this. One Night In Hackney303 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has been delisted. It CLEARLY does not meet GA standards, it was not promoted after review, which is required at this time. There are multiple issues that disqualify this article. I suggest a peer review to help bring this article up to standard before it is renominated at which time it needs to be posted to WP:GAN and wait for review like everyone else.
Regards, LaraLoveT/C 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination on hold

I think the article holds great potential however there is still major work to do to get it to GA level. I have put it on hold so that standing issues can be resolved. They are a lot, however I think they can be done within the 7 days allowed per Wikipedia:Good article candidates guidelines as it is backed by hard-working editors. Anyway, this is how the article, as of May 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. As for the first requirement (It is well written):

  • Per WP:Lead section, the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. This requirement is not met as the lead fails to summarize the rest of the article, for instance it mentions minor facts (Gepard AA systems) while ignoring major ones (the whole history section for example). It would be useful if the editors check out the lead of United States Marine Corps which is a featured article. IMHO the lead needs to be totally rewritten so that ir can provide an adequate introduction for a reader with no prior knowledge of the article's subject. Y Done - although I'm not sure if it's good
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings should not start with articles (such as 'the') as in The Bucharest Garrison - HQ Bucharest. Y Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), words in headings should not be linked as has been done in all subheadings in the Present organization section. My suggestion is that they should not be tagged as subsections. Y Done
  • The structure of the article itself should be reorganized. Current sections are confusing (for instance there is a Current state section as well as a Present Organization one; also while almost most combat units are listed under Present Organization, special forces are not). Check the organization of the United States Marine Corps article. Y Done
  • In the Manpower subsection, numbers are used inconsistently: eight combat brigades, 4 combat support. In 2005 should be replaced with As of 2005. The first mention of the word brigades is redundant and should be eliminated. Personell should be replaced by personnel. Also in this section the use of Romanian Land Forces and Romanian Army is confusing for readers who have no idea that Romanian Army actually means Romanian Armed Forces. That should be explained and Romanian Army wikilinked. Y Done
  • In the Modernization subsection, a three stage restructuring is mentioned but not explained. What comprises each stage? If that is not mentioned there is little use in mentioning when are they gonna be completed. Also no mention is made of when did Romania join NATO. Y Done
  • In the World War I subsection, the main article reference should be before the first picture and not after it. This section is also in need of copyediting so as to make it more clear. For instance: the Brusilov Offensive is mentioned in the first sentence but not explained, a reader with no prior knowledge of the Eastern Front in WWI would be lost; Transylvania is mentioned but not that it belonged to Austria-Hungary at that time; Rommel is mentioned, but this mention is quite irrelevant for the present article, it should be erased. Also why is Romanian Army used in the history section instead of Romanian Land Forces? That needs to be explained. Y Done
  • In the World War II subsection, there is need of copyediting for clarity and to avoid redundancies such as fought many battles right next to saw lots of action. Also could run in excess of 200,000 should be replaced by probably exceeded of 200,000. Finally the Although, in retrospect, the royal coup has been estimated to have shortened the war by as much as six months makes no sense as the sentence structure should be Although something happened, another thing happened. - Y Done
  • In the Cold War subsection, why is Valter Roman mentioned? No clue is given as to his significance. who was to serve as Minister of Defense should be replaced by who later served as Minister of Defense as it is better to write about history in past tense. The word Defence is written in this section with an S (Defense) but in other places in the article it is written Defence, spelling should be standarized. Also why is Sovietization capitalized? - Y Done
  • In the Present organization subsection, why is the Joint Task Force HQ mentioned if it is not part of the Romanian Land Forces? This also seems an awkward place to mention the Land Forces official day, it would be better in the Lead section and it should be explained why this day was picked. The whole The current Romanian corps are smaller than the regular corps sentence is unclear, what are regular corps? Those previously used in Romania or those of other armies? If the latter, which armies are those? The third paragraph of this section is made up of a single sentece, it should be either fleshed out (for instance mentionin the higher levels of the chain of command: President - Ministry of Defence - C-in-C or the equivalent) or merged with the second paragraph. The words battalion and btn are used inconsistently throughout this section, perhaps it would be better to standarize on battalion. -Y Done (the official day will be moved soon)
  • In the Equipment subsection, the first sentence needs a footnote like the one used in the lead section. The second sentence looks like POV and is in contradiction with the lead (which mentions Gepard instead of Jder). partially Y Done (the second sentence still needs to be done)
  • In the Special Forces subsection, how can a battalion in formation be the most famous one? Has it undertaken any decisive military operation to deserve such fame? The whole section on which countries have trained with Romanian Special Forces seems irrelevant for this article it should be reduced to one sentence or even erased. Y Done
  • In the International missions subsection, does this listing refer to only to current deployments? If so, the first sentence should be The following troops are deployed abroad. - Y Done

2. As for the second requirement (It is factually accurate and verifiable):

  • Per Wikipedia:Footnotes, footnotes should be located after punctuation marks such that there is no space in between; several footnotes in the infobox have been wrongly placed. - Y Done
  • Some of the footnotes from romanian sources are tagged (Romanian) but others are not, that should be standarized. The same goes for access dates for web pages, some have it, some do not. Y Done
  • It looks awkward to quote a romanian source for the statement they are one of the most modern armies in Eastern Europe and one of the most important newest NATO members. It looks like POV. - disagree with this, the romanian news article is based on an AFP article which clearly shows that Romania is the biggest and most important country acceding NATO in 2004.
  • No source is mentioned for the Equipment Summary. Y Done

3. As for the third requirement (It is broad in its coverage): it looks good enough for a GA.

4. As for the fourth requirement (It is neutral): there are a few instances that look like POV, as mentioned above.

5. As for the fifth requirement (It is stable): the article seems compliant.

6. As for the sixth requirement (Any images it contains are appropriate): the article seems compliant.

Good luck on your endevour, I'll check again in 7 days. For questions or comments you can contact me on my talk page. --Victor12 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning: You signed the "In the World War II" point as Done, but you reedited my changes in the sentence: "Although, it has been estimated that the royal coup shortened the war by as much as six months." If we leave the sentence like this it is a grave grammatical error! If you use "Although" you must have a contradicting statement that follows. i.e.: "Although he does not like carrots, he ate them to please his mother." As it is now the "Royal Coup" sentence must be changed into either:
  • "It has been estimated that the royal coup shortened the war by as much as six months." or
  • "Although, it has been estimated that the royal coup shortened the war by as much as six months, ... (contradicting statement here) ..." I changed it to the first sentence, but if you actually have a contradicting statement, you must insert it!
Also in the same section: to link to the German Army is wrong. The German Military was the Wehrmacht then and the modern day Heer refuses to see itself in any way linked to the former. Therefore linking to German Army is an erorr. It is as if you write "Red Army" and the link is like this: Armed Forces of the Russian Federation I corrected this.
another point in the section "Present organization": The strucuture is more like the Italian Army The French Army has one command for all Brigades, whereas Italy has three Commands (COMFOD 1, COMFOD 2, COMALP) that are like mixed Corps (and are indeed command by a Generale di Corpo d'Armata (OF-8)). I changed that point to. noclador 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry noclador, yesterday I started to edit the page before you submited your edits. Eurocopter tigre 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Victor12, is there anything else to be done in the article? Eurocopter tigre 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just some issues:
  • Subheadings in the "Present organization" section have been delinked, however why is most of the listing of units in bold letters? It would be better to use Bold letters only for corps and the Bucarest garrison. I would suggest following noclador's proposal to use a shorter listing as in the Structure of the Canadian Forces Land Force Command article. I think the main units are looking much better bolded, however, is it really necessary to be de-bolded?? (please note that the main units in the Spanish Army, Italian Army, German Army, US Army etc, are also bolded)
  • The following observation has not been addressed, despite being marked as "done":
  • The structure of the article itself should be reorganized. Current sections are confusing (for instance there is a Current state section as well as a Present Organization one; also while almost most combat units are listed under Present Organization, special forces are not). Check the organization of the United States Marine Corps article. - the name of the ex Present Organization section has been changed in "Present structure", isn't that enough? Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Spelling of the word "defence" is still inconsistent with some instances of "defence" and others of "defense" - Y Done Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This sentence "The current Romanian corps are smaller than the regular modern corps" still doesn't make sense, what does it mean by "regular army corps". Also, that should be explained in the text of the article, not commented out. Y Done Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are Territorial Army Corps, the Bucharest Garrison in bold letters in the first paragraph of the "Present structure" section Y Done Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In the Special Forces subsection, how can a battalion in formation be the most famous one? The "famous" statement should be removed. -read more carefully, is "the most famous special forces unit", not the most famous battalion; Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also in this section, Corps' reconnaissance battalions are mentioned, even though they have already been refered to in the "structure section". IMHO this two sections should be merged Y Done
  • In the footnotes the tag (Romanian) should go before the note, not after it per WP practice. Y Done Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • About the Romanian article quoted for the "most modern armies in Eastern Europe statement", if it's based in an AFP article, why not quote directly from that one? It'll save you a lot of headaches when you nominate the article for FA or undergo a peer review. - fixed sentence, Y Done
That's all I think. Greetings, --Victor12 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! It finally passed!! Thanks a lot Victor for reviewing this article and thanks to other users who helped me in the improvement of the article. ---Eurocopter tigre 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination passed

I believe the article in its current form meets all GA requirements so I've passed it as such. Congratulations to everyone involved in this effort! However I also believe there are some outstanding issues which need to be dealt with, even though they don't affect the GA status IMHO. They are as follows:

  • The "Present organization" section has too much bolded text in it, even such things as "other supporting units" are in bold letters! I know there's a need to distinguish major and minor units, but I don't think this is the way to go. Compare it to the examples that Eurocopter tigre has given above (Spanish Army for instance) and you'll see the difference.
  • This one is really minor. In the following sentence "The most famous and well trained unit is the 1st Special Ops. Battalion (nicknamed "The Eagles"), which was legally created in late 2005", why is the word "famous" used? Why is this battalion famous for? Is it famous outside Romania? Has it achieved any notable military feat? If the answers are negative the word needs to be removed.
  • The last issue is that the article structure probably needs to be revamped for clearness and coherence. For instance, why aren't special forces under "Present structure" with all the other units? Why the titles "current state" and "present structure" used simultaneously? An average reader could think that it would be logical to have "present strucuture" as part of "current state". Finally, do Corps and their HQ need to be used as subsection titles? They are pretty long and distort the table of contents. In my opinion they should be just listed, not be made into their own independent sections.

Anyway, those are just my opinions for whatever their worth. Congratulations again on a good article!!! --Victor12 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince

Yes, Cuza had the title of Domnitor, just as Stephen the Great was called Voivod, or Hospodar, or unficially domnitor; but in English, it is best translated as Prince. I understand that you want to promote the Romanian term, but I think it's best to be consistent and make everyone understand. Cuza was recognized as a Prince, but not under the Ro name of Domnitor. In foreign literature, Cuza is called a prince. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Domnitor" term should be kept, because it represents the official title of the ruler of the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. (see also Ion Antonescu, "Conducător" of Romania) --Eurocopter tigre 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • Do not use WWII to abbreviate World War II or the Second World War. Its not encyclopedic or appropriate.Y Done
  • Lead changes tense and talks about ongoing events in a colloquial fashion. Use the past tense throughout, even for events recently in the past. Also the lead needs updating as it talks about events coming "by the end of 2007".Y Done
  • Reshape the lead into three simple paragraphs and try to give a clearer picture of what constitutes the Romanian Land Forces - infantry, armour, artillery etc.Y Done, thus the infantry, artillery and armour are mentioned in the infobox;
I'll accept this, but the infobox should only really be a simple guide backed up by textual references. it should try to stand alone.
  • All sources should be placed after punctuation, after full stops if possible.Y Done
  • Please source (and expand if possible) the first paragraph of World War I.
  • What happened in the army between 1918 and 1940. - nothing important to be mentioned during this period;
Then say so. As it is the article jumps over a 22 year period in which all armies were modernising and reorganising after the First World War. If there really is nothing to say then this is worth commenting on in of itself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Source and clarify the first paragraph of World War II. - what is unclear in it?
Had a go myself to demonstrate problems. Effectively the article assumed that all readers would know Romania began on the Axis side - I knew that, but you can't assume that everyone will.
  • What happened between 1950 and 1980? - read the entire section
I have, it talks about reorganisation, but what about action? Were Romanian troops involved in any operations alongside other communist countries? Did they go on exercises with them? If not, discuss why.
  • Third paragraph of "Cold War" covers several topics and is rather confused. Try to seperate it into clearer themes. - why? in this paragraph is made a comparison of the RoLF structure between 1950-1980.
Because this is the "history" section, not the stucture one. Thus there should be mention of, for example, conscription, leadership, morale, ethos and other aspects of the Romanian Army. I'll probably concede this if you really don't want to do it, but it is something to think about.
  • Source the statistics in manpower. - already sourced;
It is now, it wasn't when I reviewed the article.
  • An image in Special Forces is covering part of the text. See WP:BUNCH for solutions.Y Done
  • All websources need publication information.
Some of these have been done, but not all.
  • Please confirm that images from the Romanian ministry of defence are public domain. If so, the image of Romanian snow troops is incorrectly tagged. - I confirm, there is a disclaimer on the MoD official site, but it's available only in Romanian.--Eurocopter (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just an initial list of the bigger problems. I will check back in no less than seven days and if work is being done I will provide more issues to be worked on to bring this up to standard. The article is quite good and does not need a vast amount of additional work to get to GA, just a series of tidying. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In summary, this article is much improved from when I reviewed it, and I think I'm OK to pass it. I recommend continuing to look at the remaining issues above, and also consider getting a copyedit from the League of Copyeditors, the prose is a little laboured in places. Otherwise this is shapping up nicely and I'm OK to pass it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)