Talk:Advanced Tactical Fighter

Concept images

The concept images for the ATF from the difference contractor can be found at Defenseimagery search. They are probably copyrighted to the contractors, so fair use will be required to use them here. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Complete coverage?

I need to mention first flights, flight testing and proposals submitted afterwards. Are there any other major points concerning the ATF program not covered? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

Any details needed to clarify things or fill any holes? I can add a little more on the flight testing. But my sources don't have a lot of detail and one has more on the YF-22, since it is an F-22 book. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Advanced Tactical Fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119223134/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2382 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2382
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073256/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2383 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2383
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106044034/http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible GA assessment?

I've significant expanded the article, making use of recent publications as well as the classic ATF book by Aronstein and Hirschberg (surprised it wasn't used earlier). Is this article worth nominating as a GA? Steve7c8 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Advanced Tactical Fighter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Steve7c8 (talk · contribs) 14:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Starting review

Simply announcing to editors that I am beginning this review. I am quite active so notify me here or on my talk page if you have anything you would like to tell me. Happy editing! - DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Initial review

I have now read the entirety of the article. My first thoughts are that the article is extremely well illustrated. The positioning of the media was well considered, and provides for a pleasant and engaging reading experience. The illustration media is vast in variety, and matches the topic at hand well, I particularly took note of this around the design and competition areas of the article. The content is understandable for the audience, and does not get overly complex, presenting the information in a simple but readable article. Citations are good, coming from a variety of platforms, including websites, magazines, and the like. Originally, I had a concern regarding the book citations, but after consulting Wikipedia guidelines, I see that the use of the book citations are fine and accepted. The article focuses directly on the program and the aircraft within it. All sentences and paragraphs are relevant to the main topic. From what I can distinguish, the article provides a NPOV and contains neither positive nor negative bias towards the program, or the competition. It espouses views from both sides of the critique spectrum. Given that the article is about a rather old (in context) program, and the aircraft has already been procured, there is no real day to day vast change in content. The article is stable. After comparing my thoughts with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, personally I think there is no reason this article should fail GA. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you agree that this article meets all 6 GA criteria?

1. Well-written

2. Verifiable with no original research

3. Broad in its coverage

4. Neutral

5. Stable

6. Illustrated

In that case, I'll adjust the template above to reflect. Thank you! Steve7c8 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Advanced Tactical Fighter program resulted in the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor?
  • Reviewed:

Created by Steve7c8 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Steve7c8 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC).

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: AGF on offline hook. Good to go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The four initial concepts in prose or bullet points?

I know that the MOS typically prefers to have information in prose rather than bullet points, but I feel like in this case, the information about the four initial ATF concepts (N, SCM, SLO, HI) is better conveyed with the latter. Do we have concurrence for leaving it as is? Steve7c8 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)