Talk:Sud-Ouest Espadon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo[edit]

I have added a photo, but haven't removed Imageneeded as a photo of a complete aircraft would be much better. Lestocq (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The french Wikipedia includes SO.6020_Espadon.jpg --Diego bf109 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it's not properly licensed and should be deleted from Commons--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sud-Ouest Espadon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I will review, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • link mixed-power?
    • Spelled it out instead.

Background

  • link Lucien Servanty
  • ...and submitted the SO.6020 when the French Air Force issued not crazy about the phrasing here. Suggest something like "and submitted a design proposal, designated SO.6020, in response to the French Air Force issuing..."
    • Rephrased.
  • The aircraft had have a speed "had have"? Maybe " had to have.
  • with planes to order "plans"?
  • aircraft satisfied the requirements. suggest "aircraft satisfied its requirements.
  • The aircraft was a metal-skinned mid-wing suggest "As built, the aircraft was a metal-skinned mid-wing..."
  • was the Heinkel ejection seat part of the original specification?
    • Yes.

Development

  • possibly due to the need to revise the air intakes shouldn't intakes be singular? Or should the first mention of intakes be plural?
    • Good catch.
  • Is there a link for SO.6025?
    • No.
  • I'm confused by the references to the SO.6021 in this section. On the one hand, it is a fighter prototype and on the other it is the proposed production version.
    • I think that I've clarified it now

Specifications

  • Is it necessary to recite the book titles here, can't [16], [17] just go against the "General characteristics" heading?
    • The aircraft specs template won't allow that
  • OK, I didn't realise that was a template. Zawed (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

  • One dupelink - cockpit
  • Image tags look OK

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sturm, just checking you've seen this. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, passing as GA as I believe it meets the criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See if my changes are satisfactory. Thanks for being patient with me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]