Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/SEPECAT Jaguar

SEPECAT Jaguar

I am requesting a peer review of the article because it seems to be a potential FA candidate, so I want to play a role too see if it really can become one. But first I'd like to see it become A-class. Personally, I am fond of this aircraft, and I think it'll be a pity if it doesn't reach the star. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 00:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D

As some quick comments:

• 'SEPECAT' probably shouldn't be in italics as it's also the common English-language name
  • Really? The only common word I see is cat. Anyway  Done.
• "The Jaguars had still provided a valuable component of the campaign, the RAF detachment of 12 Jaguars flew 612 combat sorties, with no aircraft being lost,[48] however significant changes were made both during and shortly after the war." reads rather awkwardly and should be split into at least two sentences.
  •  Done
• "RAF Jaguars were used for rapid deployment and regional reinforcement, and others flew in the tactical nuclear strike role." is unclear and unreferenced (should it start with 'Some RAF Jaguars..."?)
  • Found references for "rapid deployment" and "tactical nuclear strike role". One of them came from Vectorsite.net, do I placed the phrase under hidden instead.
• "The Jaguar was also used in small numbers for the anti-ship role" - should this be in the past tense? - if so, what aircraft have replaced the Jaguar in this role?
  • Changed to present tense.  Done
• The location of the 'Gulf War' section after the section on the aircraft's service withe the IAF is a bit odd. This section also repeats material already covered in the article.

The Gulf War section has always been odd. As multiple operators flew it, it couldn't be placed under one nor the other, and it had a lot of detail in it, making it equally bizarre to partition it into the generic nationality sections. I've never really known what to do with it. Kyteto (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• The level of detail provided to the IAF seems low compared to that accorded to the RAF and French Air Force

When I built it from scratch, I threw in all the detail I could find after keeping the article as my primary focus for a month, I exausted all the sources I had; and other editors helped out as well. Perhaps one reason the IAF is smaller than the RAF, is that the IAF did less things with them, less major wars, no nuclear patrols ect. Operational detail isn't non-existent, but there just appeared to be less of it. I'd love for there to be more though. Kyteto (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise, few details are provided on the aircraft's service with Ecuador, Nigeria and Oman - can this be expanded? Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done

Kyteto

The Referencing would need a dozen or so citations to be completely replaced to proceed to a higher quality level. Websites likes Ejection-history.org.uk. and nuclear-weapons.info. automatically flag up major red lights. Frankly, it is questionable if they should be allowed in a GA, let alone an FA, so they would definantly need to be switched out. Kyteto (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to rectify the problem. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dank

This is all in the first two sentences:

• "jet ground attack aircraft": ground attack jet, maybe
• "in the close air support and nuclear strike role": in close air support and nuclear strike roles
• "Armée de l'Air": French Air Force
• "as jet trainer": as a jet trainer
• "a light ground attack capability": some ground attack capability, unless "light" is a technical term, in which case, drop the "a": "light ground attack capability"
• "the requirement for the aircraft": the requirements for the aircraft
• "changed to include": included
• "supersonic performance": probably "supersonic speed"
• "reconnaissance and tactical nuclear strike roles.": add an "and": "and reconnaissance and tactical nuclear strike capabilities." - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)