# Talk:Bold Orion

Looks good for a B-class article. I assessed coverage as "yes", because it looks covered and I'm taking in good faith it is, though I admit I am no authority on the history of ballistic missiles. I would suggest some sentence to wrap it up at the end, like, "With the success of the final test, the innovations of the Bold Orion were implemented in the next missile..." or something. Roger out. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bold Orion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
prose:   (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
1. weapins. Change to weapons.

 Done
2.  USAF's. Suggest - Changing USAF to United States Air Force, as some people might not understand that acronym

I added a clarification of the acronym after where the full name is given on the line above.
3. change the Bibliography so that it is in alphabetical order. 

 Done
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That was fast! Nice work Bush, Passed. Thurgate (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this article has a minor case of UK English, e.g., "authorisation." As this is an American weapons system, designed, built, and tested in the United States, why is UK English even being contemplated for use here? It's bad enough seeing it in the ISS article but here there can't even be a remote excuse for it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.18 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bold Orion. 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/20101120001307/http://astronautix.com/fam/bolorion.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/fam/bolorion.htm
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) 13:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)