McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 July 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Hammersfan: Moving this here from my user talk page: Mark83 ( talk) 09:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Let me know what you think. Hammersfan ( talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Mark83: - that all seems fair enough. As regards point 2, I can have a go at coming up with another way of putting it, but if you have an idea of how it might read better, feel free to make that change. I've replied to your points below. Hammersfan ( talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Mark83: - I've gone through the remaining issues that you've indicated, with responses below. Hammersfan ( talk) 16:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Are these needed? I ask because they break up the prose considerably. And the story they tell is the Phantom is more capable than the aircraft it replaced which is intuitive anyway? Mark83 ( talk) 10:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Can this go? I just don't see the need for it due to the fact that the standard specifications section is at the bottom of the article and this is therefore unnecessary clutter? Mark83 ( talk) 10:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Mark83: - I was wondering how you thought this was now, and whether you reckon it's in a good enough state to resubmit for FA consideration? Hammersfan ( talk) 15:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Mark83: - I've taken a look at your list of recommendations, and undertaking the following:
Let me know how you feel about it. Hammersfan ( talk) 16:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Hammersfan: - Thanks for all the work you have put and are putting into this article. I'll give it a top to bottom read through after all these changes and get back to you. One question in the meantime - do you think "2.5 Phantom bases" could be moved down to before Specifications? It's a great table, but breaks up the article due to its size. I don't think anything will be lost by moving it down? Mark83 ( talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
An edit was reversed with the comment: "I think that's too much detail - where do you stop? The corporate history is on the respective articles for readers if they are interested?"
Well, no, the problem is that there is no encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia regarding the various mergers of the corporate components of the British aerospace industry and its effects (on design teams, on local communities, etc). There should be, given that these mergers were much more complicated than those seen in any other country. The article Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom totally fails to achieve this. I know of no other single place to find this story, and digging for the "corporate history...on the respective articles" is simply inadequate for a reader's time and need for accuracy. So, please accept my edit as a protest for the deplorable condition of this subject. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 01:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The corporate history isn't covered properly where it should be, so you’re squeezing it in here as a “protest”? Can I respectfully suggest you improve the appropriate articles rather than making protests in this article?
And I don’t accept your second argument. There is a bit of corporate history here as context. But you are adding yet another layer which is not germane. Mark83 ( talk) 06:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 July 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Hammersfan: Moving this here from my user talk page: Mark83 ( talk) 09:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Let me know what you think. Hammersfan ( talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Mark83: - that all seems fair enough. As regards point 2, I can have a go at coming up with another way of putting it, but if you have an idea of how it might read better, feel free to make that change. I've replied to your points below. Hammersfan ( talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Mark83: - I've gone through the remaining issues that you've indicated, with responses below. Hammersfan ( talk) 16:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Are these needed? I ask because they break up the prose considerably. And the story they tell is the Phantom is more capable than the aircraft it replaced which is intuitive anyway? Mark83 ( talk) 10:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Can this go? I just don't see the need for it due to the fact that the standard specifications section is at the bottom of the article and this is therefore unnecessary clutter? Mark83 ( talk) 10:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Mark83: - I was wondering how you thought this was now, and whether you reckon it's in a good enough state to resubmit for FA consideration? Hammersfan ( talk) 15:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Mark83: - I've taken a look at your list of recommendations, and undertaking the following:
Let me know how you feel about it. Hammersfan ( talk) 16:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Hammersfan: - Thanks for all the work you have put and are putting into this article. I'll give it a top to bottom read through after all these changes and get back to you. One question in the meantime - do you think "2.5 Phantom bases" could be moved down to before Specifications? It's a great table, but breaks up the article due to its size. I don't think anything will be lost by moving it down? Mark83 ( talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
An edit was reversed with the comment: "I think that's too much detail - where do you stop? The corporate history is on the respective articles for readers if they are interested?"
Well, no, the problem is that there is no encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia regarding the various mergers of the corporate components of the British aerospace industry and its effects (on design teams, on local communities, etc). There should be, given that these mergers were much more complicated than those seen in any other country. The article Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom totally fails to achieve this. I know of no other single place to find this story, and digging for the "corporate history...on the respective articles" is simply inadequate for a reader's time and need for accuracy. So, please accept my edit as a protest for the deplorable condition of this subject. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 01:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The corporate history isn't covered properly where it should be, so you’re squeezing it in here as a “protest”? Can I respectfully suggest you improve the appropriate articles rather than making protests in this article?
And I don’t accept your second argument. There is a bit of corporate history here as context. But you are adding yet another layer which is not germane. Mark83 ( talk) 06:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)