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

Reviewer: Crowz RSA 01:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• The cargo hold was 30 feet (9.1 m) long and 12 feet (3.7 m) wide,[3] and featured an innovative configuration, the rear fuselage being upswept with a integrated loading ramp, allowing vehicles to be driven directly on and off of the aircraft.[4] This is a run-on or something, it really doesn't read well. Crowz RSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

 Done

• Data from Adcock - This should be changed to a complete sentence, perhaps The following data can be verified by Adcock. Crowz RSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

That's actually standard format for {{ Aircraft specs}}. I've changed it to list the title of the book instead though.

• {The largest glider ever built in the United States, it did not see… Insert "Being" at the beginning of the sentence. Crowz RSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I've reshuffled that sentence in an alternative matter, hope it reads better now.

• You need to refer to the Air Force as USAAF throughout the article instead of USAF, as it was still the army air forces. Crowz RSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, the XG-20 didn't fly until 1950, two years after the USAF was established as an independent service from the former USAAF. I have clarified the wording in several places though

• hydraulic power to the landing gear and flaps,[3] The nose The comma should be a period. Crowz RSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

 Done

• The Primary user should be the United States Army Air Forces, not United States Air Force. Crowz RSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

As noted above, the USAAF never used the type at all - it was the USAF that conducted all the flight testing.

• However Chase had designed the aircraft to allow for the easy… Insert comma after However. Crowz RSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

 Done

• In the references, occasionally you refer to the page number as stuff like page 1, when it should be p. 1

 Done

• That's all I see, I'll put the article on hold for a while. If the issues are addressed, I will pass the article. Crowz RSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the review! :) I've worked on everything (except the USAAF/USAF thing, as explained), hope it's improved. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Result

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Congratssss, the article is pretty short, but still passable for GA. Crowz RSA 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply