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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
At the moment mostly a sequence of "X said Y" culled from media. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least some sectioning! - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, breaking down the announcements by year just makes the whole edifice look even more rickety. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an improvement! - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this a separate article and not just a paragraph in theprocurement article, which is all that is justified. Can someone give me a reason for not prodding or mergeing it?Petebutt (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's out of the way here and can be carefully groomed until it actually resembles a half-decent piece of text rather than cluttering up the main article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already pretty large and with a controversial aircraft like this will only get larger over time. We already had consensus to split! - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one paper is getting pasted all over the place, but I didn't see anything notable enough to add. Hcobb (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
