Talk:AUM-N-2 Petrel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 05:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 05:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   "The AUM-N-2 Petrel, also known as Kingfisher C and AUM-2, was an air-to-surface missile produced by the United States as part of Project Kingfisher." -- Suggest rewording: "The AUM-N-2 Petrel, also known as Kingfisher C and AUM-2, was an air-to-surface missile produced as part of the U.S. Navy's Project Kingfisher."

   Reworded this a bit to be clearer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

   • Any idea of a unit cost for each AUM-N-2?
   • Any indicator of how many were produced? A ballpark would be good if possible.
   • Any idea how much was budgeted for research and development?

   • Unfortunatly, none of the sources I have access too mention any of these things. Some of them (like number produced) may well be on the pile of "this was classified for good reason at the time, and by the time anybody thought to declassify it, the data was simply lost". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

   • "assigned only to reserve units" -- Does this mean Naval Reserve units? If so should be clarified. Any word on the units or aircraft it was commonly used for, too?
     • It does, and I've linked Naval Reserve with a clarification. And I managed to get a different Google Books snippet of Friedman that showed which squadrons used the weapon, amazingly enough, so I was able to add those. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
   • Agree with the clarification tag, the sentence there is a bit awkward.
     • I'd accidentallied a word and have now fixed it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
   • Some discussion about why it didn't work for submerged targets would be good too. It may be a ref you need to grab from some source generally on semi-active homing, but if so still would be best.
     • Added a line about radar not working on underwater targets. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

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

   Pass Images appear to be appropriately tagged and copyright checks out.

7. Other:

   Dup links, dab links, copyvio and external links tools all check out.

   • Source spotcheck Ref #1 and Ref #7 backs up what's indicated in the article.

On Hold pending a few minor fixes. Otherwise looks pretty good! —Ed!^(talk) 21:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, Ed! Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to it - as I mentioned on the DYK note, real life kicked me around a bit. I should be able to get to this this week (perhaps even tomorrow morning), so, I'll see what I can do. Pretty sure cost data isn't available, as a note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem! I know how that can be. Just let me know. —Ed!^(talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ed!: And great apologies for taking so ridiculously long to get back to this. When my muse goes flat, it goes flat. However I think I've managed to address the issues above at long last! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Certainly understood! Glad to see you back. Passing GA now. —Ed!^(talk) 21:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)