# Talk:Advanced Tactical Fighter

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)