Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick-D (talk | contribs) at 10:24, 21 December 2013 (→McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II: cmts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:24, 21 December 2013 by Nick-D (talk | contribs) (→McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II: cmts)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©ontributions 02:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is an Anglo-American development of the first-generation Hawker Siddeley Harrier that is capable of vertical or short take off and landing, or V/STOL. It entered service in the mid-1980s with the US Marine Corps before being exported to Spain and Italy. Like its predecessor, the aircraft has attracted significant attention due to its V/STOL ability and, to a lesser extent, its high-accident rate. With more than 340 examples built, the AV-8B will be replaced by the F-35 Lightning II.

After about 100 hours of research, writing and collaboration with other editors, I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. This FAC is the second after a premature nomination I made in 2011, when the article was sorely lacking in content. With this nomination, I am looking to make the article the 15th FA of WikiProject Aircraft. All comments are welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©ontributions 02:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Images

  • File:YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg: source link isn't working. Same with File:Marine_Corps_TAV-8B_Harrier.jpg, File:McDONNELL_DOUGLAS,_BAe_AV-8B_HARRIER_II.png
  • Comments
In the lead the "UK", presumes that all readers will know its the United Kingdom. Should be in brackets after first use of the full names. Same with USMC as you have done in the origins section.
In that section inconsistency of terms - starts with Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC). Then in the next paragraph its RAF and Marine Harriers.
In the same paragraph - the US was unwilling, same as first point not everyone will know what the "US" refers to.
Numbering - 12 aircraft, 40 percent, RAF, 60 then in the upgrades section we have twenty-eight and later on in the Spanish navy section eleven aircraft.
Not sure this should be in an article about the aircraft seems to be a memorial and off focus "Some of the VMA-211 pilots fought as infantrymen during the raid; the squadron commander, Lieutenant Colonel Chris Raible, 40, was killed while leading an attack on the insurgents, armed only with his pistol. The attack was described as the worst loss of U.S. airpower in a single incident since the Vietnam War." Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Slightly shaky Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Shaky because these are the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class; in the "improved diff", that shows up as a sea of red and green, but I hope I didn't miss anything. These are my edits. Some reviewers will object to "and the latest in July 2013" per WP:DATED. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Taken a bit at a time as this is a big article)

  • What does the link of Combined arms have to do with "support of ground troops"? I think the link of close air support suffices.
  • Why is Pegasus 15 italicized on first use? And isn't it missing "the" in front of it?
  • Remove italics. Added the.
  • The engine was more powerful but had a diameter 2.75 in (70 mm) greater, too large to fit into the Harrier easily. Isn't there a missing comma here?
  • Added comma after powerful.
  • Why are you inconsistently italicizing designations on first appearance? YAV-8B, GR.7 forex, but not AV-8B(NA) or GR.5?
  • Italics were present when the designations themselves were discussed. For example, in "the designation GR Mk.7; earlier GR Mk.5", the designation of "GR Mk.7" was talked about, while that of the GR Mk.5 was not. I've replaced all italics with quotation marks for consistency.
  • Why bother even doing that? I don't see a need at all for either italics or quotation marks for aircraft designations. I certainly don't see many used in other aircraft articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Removed quotation marks.
  • At the time, the USN wanted to procure A-18s to constitute its ground attack force, and so pressured the USMC to adopt the F-18 instead of the AV-8B to fulfill the role of close air support (both designs would eventually be amalgamated to create the F/A-18 Hornet). This is unclear. The reader has no idea what an A-18 is and thus its close relationship with the F-18.
  • Reworded to "At the time, the USN wanted to procure A-18s to constitute its ground attack force, and to cut costs, pressured the USMC to adopt the similarly-designed F-18 fighter instead".
  • took its maiden flight Never seen this usage before. The common phrasing is "made", not "took".
  • Replaced.
  • (LERX, which are extensions to the root of the wing's leading-edge) If you're not going to use the phrase again, there's no point in giving the abbreviation. And the explanation seems a bit redundant as the actual link title suffices to explain it. But perhaps I'm biased because I already know what they are.
  • The explanation was added after an editor wanted clarification on what the LERX was. Removed initialism and explanation entirely.
  • Is the BuNo for any individual aircraft really worth knowing?
  • I don't see why not.
  • Seems a bit detailed for an enyclopedic article.
  • Link financial year.
  • Linked.
  • 824 variants were delivered This is unclear and should be rephrased to inform the reader that 824 Harriers, of all models, were delivered.
  • Reworded to "824 Harriers of all models were delivered".
  • Updated with recent Taiwanese request for F-35.
  • would follow shouldn't this simply be "followed"?

Now for the Design section:

  • The first sentence is inadequate as I'm used to a bit more general description of the aircraft. Forex, from a book on the Westland Wyvern that I just finished: "The Wyvern was a cantilever low-wing monoplane of all-metal, stressed skin construction, fitted with retractable main and tail wheel landing gear plus catapult and holdback attachments and a tail hook." Now that probably should have been split into two sentences, and "single-engined" should have been added somewhere, but that does give a good general description that can be elaborated and explained later on in the section.
  • I've merged the first two sentences and added the fact that the aircraft is of metal and composite construction.
  • Didn't the first generation Harrier have four wing stations, plus a belly hardpoint, plus the cannon mounts on the belly? The wording here is confusing.
  • Reworded.
  • Fuel capacity can be enlarged I found this awkward and too wordy. Just tell the reader that additional fuel can be carried on the hardpoints.
  • Reworded.
  • McDonnell Douglas overhauled how about redesigned instead?
  • Replaced.

Comments -- recusing myself from delegate duties for a copyedit and detailed review...

  • "the second aircraft, which crashed in November due to engine flameout" -- I realise the article is pretty detailed but can we record the fate of the pilot?
  • "These modified AV-8s were flight-tested during 1978 and 1979." -- timeline seems off to me since we just said the first one flew in November 1978, didn't we, meaning there wouldn't have been much of 1978 left...? Not sure that this sentence as a whole adds much anyway...

Up to Design, more later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I've rephrased the latter sentence as "Flight testing of these modified AV-8s continued into 1979". I don't feel it's entirely redundant, as it leads into the next sentence; the "Positive results in other areas" that lead to the development contract, were specifically positive results in the flight testing mentioned in that sentence. I've clarified this a little. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Continuing where I left off...

  • "deliberately engineered lateral stability" sounds a bit odd to me -- since we're comparing it to the original Harrier, why not "increased lateral stability"?
  • Reworded.
  • I feel I should know this as someone reasonably familiar with modern military aircraft but why is "front-fuselage" hyphenated and "rear fuselage" not?
  • Removed hyphen. Sorry for the confusion.
  • General point: not sure of the number formatting standard -- I see "22", "seventeen", "60", "a thousand" -- but perhaps I'm missing something...
  • Another general point: "air strikes" or "airstrikes"?
  • Converted to numbers.
  • "Spain did not send its aircraft carrier to participate in the Iraq War in 2003, instead deploying F/A-18s and other support aircraft" -- "other support aircraft" implies the F/A-18 is a support aircraft, so do you mean "close support", or are you referring to some other type of aircraft like transports?

I think that completes the main body, will take a look at other sections in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "Approximately 340 aircraft were produced" - can a precise figure be given?
  • "and the RAF's small 60-aircraft requirement" - why did this contribute to the British withdrawal? This wasn't that small a fleet for the British military of the era (from memory, far less Sea Harriers were ordered)
  • The paragraph which starts with "The two companies took different paths toward an enhanced Harrier" is a bit confusing given that the previous para says that the project never really got off the ground
  • "The plan for Harrier II development was authorized by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) in 1976" - why did the US military re-launch the project a couple of years after abandoning it?
  • "Despite these political obstacles" - the obstacles described seem to have been more bureaucratic or doctrinal than "political"
  • Why did the UK re-enter the program?
  • Was there a link between the development of the Harrier II plus and the similar British Sea Harrier F(A).2?
  • "financially sounder" is a bit awkward ("more cost-effective", "cheaper", etc do the job)
  • A summary table of the number of aircraft of each variant produced would be great if the data are available
  • "The aircraft returned to Iraq " - it's earlier said that Harriers flew patrols over Iraq from 1992 until 2003, so "returned" doesn't seem right here
  • I'd suggest replacing the praise of the Harriers over Iraq from their commanding officers with independent assessments. This book should have good material if you haven't already consulted it.
  • What operations did Harriers conduct over East Timor in 2002? A MEU (presumably with Harriers) provided limited support for the Australian-led intervention in 1999, but I've never seen any suggestion that Harriers were used over the then-Indonesian province (Australia only flew RF-111s on photo recon sorties over East Timor during this period after clearing them with the Indonesian government). By 2002 things were pretty calm in East Timor. Similarly, are you sure that Harriers operated over Rwanda in 1994?
  • I'm pretty sure that the report that the ex-British aircraft were to be pressed into service with the Marines has been comprehensively discredited, and I'd suggest removing this (it seemed to be wishful thinking from a British writer rather than something which made military sense given that the USMC would have to spend a lot of money to modify the aircraft to be fully compatible with its standards)
  • You could note the remarkably rapid replacement of the Harrier fleet in Afghanistan following the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid.
  • The description of the role of the Italian aircraft in Libya is focused on them having "conducted intelligence and reconnaissance sorties over Libya, using the LITENING targeting pods while armed with AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-9 Sidewinders", but it's later noted that they also dropped a lot of bombs: did they also operate in a strike role?
  • In regards to the Spanish aircraft, you should probably note that Príncipe de Asturias was retired early in 2013 and they now operate from the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) (it would be worth looking for information on whether Spain's financial crisis has effected their flying hours and the plans to eventually replace them with F-35s). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)