Advanced Tactical Fighter 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: July 16, 2024. ( Reviewed version).

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

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 / North America / United States 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 North American military history task force United States military history task force

The concept images for the ATF from the difference contractor can be found at Defenseimagery search. They are probably copyrighted to the contractors, so fair use will be required to use them here. - Fnlayson ( talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I need to mention first flights, flight testing and proposals submitted afterwards. Are there any other major points concerning the ATF program not covered? Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 05:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Any details needed to clarify things or fill any holes? I can add a little more on the flight testing. But my sources don't have a lot of detail and one has more on the YF-22, since it is an F-22 book. - Fnlayson ( talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Advanced Tactical Fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119223134/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2382 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2382
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073256/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2383 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2383
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106044034/http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I've significant expanded the article, making use of recent publications as well as the classic ATF book by Aronstein and Hirschberg (surprised it wasn't used earlier). Is this article worth nominating as a GA? Steve7c8 ( talk) 07:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Advanced Tactical Fighter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Steve7c8 ( talk · contribs) 14:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Reviewer: DeadlyRampage26 ( talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Simply announcing to editors that I am beginning this review. I am quite active so notify me here or on my talk page if you have anything you would like to tell me. Happy editing! - DeadlyRampage26 ( talk) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I have now read the entirety of the article. My first thoughts are that the article is extremely well illustrated. The positioning of the media was well considered, and provides for a pleasant and engaging reading experience. The illustration media is vast in variety, and matches the topic at hand well, I particularly took note of this around the design and competition areas of the article. The content is understandable for the audience, and does not get overly complex, presenting the information in a simple but readable article. Citations are good, coming from a variety of platforms, including websites, magazines, and the like. Originally, I had a concern regarding the book citations, but after consulting Wikipedia guidelines, I see that the use of the book citations are fine and accepted. The article focuses directly on the program and the aircraft within it. All sentences and paragraphs are relevant to the main topic. From what I can distinguish, the article provides a NPOV and contains neither positive nor negative bias towards the program, or the competition. It espouses views from both sides of the critique spectrum. Given that the article is about a rather old (in context) program, and the aircraft has already been procured, there is no real day to day vast change in content. The article is stable. After comparing my thoughts with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, personally I think there is no reason this article should fail GA. DeadlyRampage26 ( talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In other words, you agree that this article meets all 6 GA criteria?

1. Well-written

2. Verifiable with no original research

3. Broad in its coverage

4. Neutral

5. Stable

6. Illustrated

In that case, I'll adjust the template above to reflect. Thank you! Steve7c8 ( talk) 16:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• ... that the Advanced Tactical Fighter program resulted in the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor?
  • Reviewed:

Steve7c8 ( talk) 21:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC). reply