Sud-Ouest Espadon has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 27, 2021. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation 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 task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article is supported by the aircraft project. Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / European / French / Cold War 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force European military history task force French military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

I have added a photo, but haven't removed Imageneeded as a photo of a complete aircraft would be much better. Lestocq (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The french Wikipedia includes SO.6020_Espadon.jpg --Diego bf109 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it's not properly licensed and should be deleted from Commons--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sud-Ouest Espadon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will review, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• link mixed-power?
  • Spelled it out instead.

Background

• link Lucien Servanty
• ...and submitted the SO.6020 when the French Air Force issued not crazy about the phrasing here. Suggest something like "and submitted a design proposal, designated SO.6020, in response to the French Air Force issuing..."
  • Rephrased.
• The aircraft had have a speed "had have"? Maybe " had to have.
• with planes to order "plans"?
• aircraft satisfied the requirements. suggest "aircraft satisfied its requirements.
• The aircraft was a metal-skinned mid-wing suggest "As built, the aircraft was a metal-skinned mid-wing..."
• was the Heinkel ejection seat part of the original specification?
  • Yes.

Development

• possibly due to the need to revise the air intakes shouldn't intakes be singular? Or should the first mention of intakes be plural?
  • Good catch.
• Is there a link for SO.6025?
  • No.
• I'm confused by the references to the SO.6021 in this section. On the one hand, it is a fighter prototype and on the other it is the proposed production version.
  • I think that I've clarified it now

Specifications

• Is it necessary to recite the book titles here, can't [16], [17] just go against the "General characteristics" heading?
  • The aircraft specs template won't allow that

• OK, I didn't realise that was a template. Zawed (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

• One dupelink - cockpit
• Image tags look OK

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sturm, just checking you've seen this. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, passing as GA as I believe it meets the criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See if my changes are satisfactory. Thanks for being patient with me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]