Talk:Lockheed Martin FB-22/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Stivushka (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Steve7c8 (talk · contribs) 05:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Stivushka (talk · contribs) 06:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started review

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written article Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Well researched article. I did pick up a couple of issues in the final para of the "Design and development" section these are marked awaiting additional/alternative citations.Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Found the information for the first cite request Found a better source for the second cite request Issue closedStivushka (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	See 6a Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stivushka (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Infobox images is taken from a 2005 book published by Midland which on review I do think meets fair usage criteria. Other two images were taken from secretprojects.co.uk but source is not given. Per WP:NFCCP (item 10) the source needs to be provided.Stivushka (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image showing the progression of the FB-22's development is poor quality low res, text underneath cannot easily be read. I am guessing this is related to copyright however it does detract from the article.Stivushka (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Well researched and written article. Need to find the find the original source for the two images taken from secretprojects.co.uk and credit them. Use a higher res version or replace the image showing development progression. On hold. Once these tasks have been completed will be happy to set as GA.Stivushka (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The images are official Lockheed Martin imagery presented at the 2005 Air Force Association Symposium, and can be found in Air Force Magazine publications as well such as in ref. 8. Some of these were in flyer cards, as is the case for ref. 23. These images used in Jay Miller's book on the F-22, published by Midland Publishing in 2005. The only way I can think of crediting them is listing it as Lockheed Martin official imagery distributed during an AFA symposium event. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting the image to a Lockheed Martin presentation if fine. Using these images, non commercially, should not be an issue, as opposed to a situation where the art work was commissioned by a major publishing house for a book. Since you have now added this to “other information” on each picture the issue is resolved.

Can you do anything about the low res progression chart showing the FB-22 proposals? maybe a slightly higher res version? Stivushka (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's another official Lockheed Martin diagram, and it's the highest resolution allowed for a non-free fair use image, it was even compressed slightly by a bot from my original upload. It's certainly not ideal, but the text is still readable. Steve7c8 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Not much point is putting a higher resolution image if it's going to get squeezed by one of the Wikibots. On balance the article is better with the progression chart than without and its low resolution is not a serious enough issue to warrant failing the article at GA level. Stivushka (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While doing some small readability type edits, I noticed that references 3 and 17 (both Quadrennial Defense Review Reports) are coming up as dead links. Can you find alternative URL for these?Stivushka (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed I found the documents at DTIC website. Stivushka (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been trying to fix dead links too. One of the Aviation Week articles may only be accessible through their internal archive, which is a paid subscription unfortunately. Steve7c8 (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it. It was in the "Further Reading" section not part of the reference material, keeping it as a dead link serves no purpose.

Anyway, that all the issues I identified fixed. Between the two of us we have worked through the minor grammar and readability issues. Article is good to go. Well done. Stivushka (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.