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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria reply

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Fix the small problem with "coupled" noted by the awkward tag. Might do well to break up that long sentence.

Fixed. Bzuk ( talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Would do well to describe the structure in more detail. Is it pretty much the same as the CF-100?

Added detail explaining the airframe fuselage structure was essentially the same but wing and tail surfaces had major alterations. Bzuk ( talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Failed, no response from editor.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, the changes were made but didn't know a response was necessary. Bzuk ( talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply