The following discussion is preserved as an
archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Support, very nice. Can see few improvements; some copyediting needed. Also, could you include the yield of the nuclear Tomahawk, and a bit about the target identification/guidance mechanism of the Tomahawk? The section on the guidance of the Harpoon is present but could do with a few line breaks and possibly some wikification and light de-jargonning.
The Land17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Contains some subjective language ("fearsome" is used a couple of times without quotation marks) but otherwise is definitely A-class material.
Cla6823:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an
archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an
archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Support, very nice. Can see few improvements; some copyediting needed. Also, could you include the yield of the nuclear Tomahawk, and a bit about the target identification/guidance mechanism of the Tomahawk? The section on the guidance of the Harpoon is present but could do with a few line breaks and possibly some wikification and light de-jargonning.
The Land17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Contains some subjective language ("fearsome" is used a couple of times without quotation marks) but otherwise is definitely A-class material.
Cla6823:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an
archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.