| Revision as of 00:51, 25 May 2006 editDCB4W (talk | contribs)1,163 edits →[]: support← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:52, 25 May 2006 edit undoDCB4W (talk | contribs)1,163 editsm →[]: I made a formatting error.Next edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| *'''Support''' Fine article. ] 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Support''' Fine article. ] 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support'', having corrected a typo. ] 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Support''', having corrected a typo. ] 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:52, 25 May 2006
F-4 Phantom II
Considerably rewritten and expanded, addressing all concerns raised in the Peer Review and previous FAC attempt and more. A detailed overview of history and service of this Cold War icon. This is a self-nom of sorts as I am the primary contributor to the current revision. - Emt147 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Support, a great article on great fighter. Just two points from me:
- Is it possible to have a table of contents please? Those list-like entries are kinda creepy :)
- I would appreciate a section/paragraph/whatever on the Wild Weasel variant. If memory serves, these aircraft were completely "undressed" and modified in order to be converted. Plus, it is a role which is slightly different.
- I'm not convinced by "comparable aircraft"... Mig-21 is 2 times lighter and much smaller than the F-4, so while they may fulfill similar roles (just as all fighters do, they're not really in the same category). Just a thought, maybe I'm wrong so I don't insist :)
Overall, a great article worthy of FA! -- Grafikm 10:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I went to the list-like entries because the TOC was gigantic. I think this is much tidier. The Wild Weasel is discussed briefly in the Gulf War section and I made it a separate bullet in the variants summary. All variants are covered in more detail in F-4 Phantom II variants. In truth, there was nothing directly comparable to the Phantom when it came out. MiG-21 and EE Lightning were the closest in mission and performance. - Emt147 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor object:
- The "Operators" section is redundant with the entire "Phantom in foreign service" section, no? I can't see any reason to give the same list of countries twice.
- Footnote 6 seems misplaced. I'm assuming it's meant to apply to the entire section; but footnotes are usually placed after the relevant material.
Other than that, great article! Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have corrected both issues. Thanks! - Emt147 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great, support from me now! Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have corrected both issues. Thanks! - Emt147 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Fine article. Rlevse 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, having corrected a typo. DCB4W 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)