# Talk:Nord Gerfaut

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nord Gerfaut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 13:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
See below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
I see Hartmann has published on this topic so I am willing to accept the source as minimally reliable.Is "The Galtier Delta Family" actually referenced? If not, it should be moved to further reading.
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

The first sentence needs work. It is burdened with too many acronyms and foreign language words upfront. I would suggest omitting the second organization if it wasn't directly involved in the production of the aircraft, and consider whether the full French-language name of SFECMAS is necessary or helpful for the casual reader. Also, this information should be included and cited in the body per MOS:LEADREL: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".
Dropped the lengthy French names and reworked the lede.
"The Nord 1402 Gerfaut had its origin in a state-sponsored study into delta and swept wings. To provide data for these studies" Study or studies? Which state?
"To utilise this data" Shouldn't it be "based on this data"? Presumably the data was gathered to make better aircraft?
(t · c) buidhe 09:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 I do see one issue which is that the first sentence now states: "originally designed and built by It was" I think there are some missing words there. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
<embarrassed>Oops, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)