The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Siddeley P.1154

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil © • ©'


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel the article is in good shape, and is ready to take the next step. I feel it is as good as the Northrop YF-23 and McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, two successful ACRs of mine that went on to become FAs. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An interesting aircraft. Some bits are worth explaining further for the non-specialist:

Comments:

Comments -- Looks pretty good to me so far but still have to go through refs and images. Prose-wise, aside from my quick copyedit, a few things:

  • The book only mentioned the radar only once, and I don't think there's any article on it.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment. If you want to go to FAC with this, and maybe even if you don't, I'd recommend rewriting the See also section as a section of text at the end, comparing and contrasting those aircraft to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna blank the section. I don't think the See also section is important enough to take up much of my effort. BTW, this ACR is stalling really badly; maybe the project should compose a substitution message that can be sent to some of the neutral members at WP:MILMEMBERS to ask for their comments at PRs, ACRs and FACs.--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we seem to have a bit if a backlog at ACR again, at least. This one's past the 28-day mark now, and my most recent queries and some of Storm's haven't be answered yet, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we'll have more discussions about the See also sections, I'm sure. Agreed with Ian; until other reviewers' comments have been addressed, I wouldn't take this to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC delegate recently announced ex cathedra that See Also sections were not allowed in Featured Articles. I see no reason to prohibit them in A class articles though. There was a lively discussion about whether the Projects can override the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link? (I had to suppress a smile at ex cathedra.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More