Talk:Republic F-105 Thunderchief/GA1

It meets all criteria except few grammar mistakes & lack of citation. A good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

(c) It follows certain elements' of the Wikipedia Manual of style, namely the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation."

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material; MORE REFERENCES PLEASE

(b) it must be possible to trace all sources of an article through inline citations that use an accepted form. Articles or sections on Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry should, however, adhere to the guideline on scientific citations.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale

Grammar Mistakes

The largest single-engined fighter ever employed by the service, it saw extensive use during the Vietnam War in both strike and SEAD roles. No naked "it" please.
Despite the fighter designation, the primary intended role of the F-105 was high-speed low-altitude penetration into enemy airspace with a single nuclear bomb in the internal bomb bay. "Despite the jet's fighter designation, the F-105 received the primary role of high-speed low-altitude penetration into the enemy airspace with a single nuclear bomb in the internal bomb bay." I think the description about the bomb being in the internal bomb bay sounds unnecessary & kind of obvious.
First flying in 1955, the Thunderchief entered service in 1958. "The Thunderchief first flew in 1955 and entered service in 1958"
Typical of advanced aircraft at the time + the
early models suffered from multiple problems with the electronics, the fuel system, and the engine. "the early models suffered from multiple problems with the electronic, fuel, and engine systems"
the single-seat single-engine F-105 I'm not sure how aircraft terminologies work, but maybe "single seated and engined F-105" would sound better.
four-engined ten-man "ten-manned and four engined" if you're going to follow the previous correction, then this should be the pattern.
at much higher speed. "at a much higher speed"
As the result "As a result"
Two-seat F-105F and F-105G Wild Weasel variants were the first dedicated anti-air defense platforms fighting against the Soviet-built S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) surface-to-air missiles. It's kind of abrupt here, switching from Vietnam War to types of variants. Rather, go like "Later, two-seat variants of the Thunderchief, F-105F and F-105G Wild Weasel, were introduced as anti-air defense platforms against the Soviet-built S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) surface-to-air missiles"
Although it weighed 50,000 pounds (22,680 kg), the F-105 could Don't use naked "it"
The Thunderchief was retired in 1984, with a total of 833 aircraft built. Don't use passive, use active
with a total of 833 aircraft built. +s
By the time the F-105 mockup had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it was abandoned in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75. No naked "it"
The first flight of the YF-105A prototype was made on 22 October 1955 Active rather than passive: "The prototype YF-105A took first flight on 22 October 1955"
(109.0 kN) "{109.0 kN}"
attained Mach 1.2 "attained the speed of Mach 1.2"
However, aerodynamic problems with transonic drag and insufficient power, as well as Convair's experience with their F-102 Delta Dagger, led to a redesign of the fuselage to conform to the Area rule, giving it a characteristic "wasp waist". "However, the lack of engine power and the aerodynamic deficiency in regards to the transonic drag"? Or are you saying that transonic drag and insufficient power both contributed to the aerodynamic problems?
led to a redesign of the fuselage to conform to the Area rule, Too many "to"s here. "in order to"
In combination with the distinctive forward-swept variable-geometry air intakes and the J75 engine, this enabled the resulting F-105B to attain Mach 2.15. "The new forward-swept variable-geometry air intakes and the J75 engine enabled the F-105B to attain the maximum speed of Mach 2.15" Could you explain variable-geometry air intakes?
continuing the Republic Aviation's sequence of P-47 Thunderbolt "Aviation's nomenclature sequence"

Conclusion

On hold.
All of the problems identified above, including lack of references, grammar mistakes, etc., must be addressed.
When those problems have been addressed, this article should definitely be a good article.

Forgot the sign. (Wikimachine 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for the detailed feedback! I have addressed most of your concerns. To decrease citation clutter, in many cases I limited citations to the end of the paragraph with the understanding that they apply to the preceding text. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did the same for some of the articles I edited, so I understand. Then since most of the problems have been addressed, this should be a featured article! (Wikimachine 23:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Grammar Mistakes

Other Problems

Conclusion