# Talk:Fairey Spearfish

Blammed a couple of typos and added a detail to the references, please revert if desirable. Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fairey Spearfish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 14:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll read through tonight and start the review proper tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 

"until it was briefly used for ground training purposes beginning on 30 April 1952, until it was scrapped shortly afterwards." Minor, but a repetition of "until it was... until it was..."
"The large internal weapons bay could carry up to four 500-pound (230 kg) bombs, four depth charges, a torpedo, or a 180-imperial-gallon (820 l; 220 US gal) auxiliary fuel tank. " I wasn't 100% sure if this was four bombs and four depth charges and a torpedo; I presumed it was either four bombs, or four charges etc., but it might be worth clarifying. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

My only concern here was the lead, which felt a little on the short side. The other bits in the main section that I thought could fit nicely in the lead were:
That it was designed to fly from the Malta-class carriers;
The dates between which it was designed/tested;
Some sort of basic description of the plane, perhaps drawing on the specifications section.
What do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research.

None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Seems to cover the literature suitably. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Suitably focused. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes; no captions, but would seem unnecessary given their positioning. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I've expanded the lede a little; I generally avoid technical detail there because it seems redundant to the main body. I also made the other changes that you requested. See how they read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)