Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service/archive2

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service

Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the use of the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. This is a second attempt at lifting this article to FA, with the first in 2020. Since then, the article has undergone extensive revision, including a major collaboration between the nominator and another editor ([1]). Hammersfan (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

Dealt with full stop issue

Don't use fixed px size

Removed fixed px size from thumb images. This is required on 3-way diagram to ensure the image isn't full-size on the page.

How so? You should be able to use |frameless= in combination with |upright= to scale it? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:First_F-4K_Phantom_FG.1_landing_at_McDonnell_plant_1966.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Hawker_P1154_RAF_and_FAA.png, File:Phantom_FG1_of_892_NAS_is_launched_from_USS_Independence_(CV-62),_November_1975.jpg, File:F-4J(UK)_Phantom_of_74_Squadron_in_flight_1984.jpg, File:Variable-geometry_Phantom.png

Located archive links to dead URLs - these have been replaced on Wikmedia Commons. National Naval Aviation Museum no longer has searchable database, the two images from this source have been replaced with alternatives

The updated source for File:Hawker_P1154_RAF_and_FAA.png does not include the marking that indicates it is PD. Ditto File:Variable-geometry_Phantom.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:McDonnell_Douglas_F-4K_Phantom_3-line_drawing.png: where is that licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No licence apparent on source 3-way diagram obtained from, so most appropriate one used for this. Diagram replaced with alternative to avoid issues.

What is the source for the data presented in File:UK_F-4_Phantom_3-view.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues addressed as above - Hammersfan (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042's comments

"Prior to formation of BAC" -> "Prior to the formation of BAC" History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"shipped to St Louis for assembly" -> "shipped to St. Louis for assembly" History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and begin a gradual rundown" -> "and began a gradual rundown" History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"prevent them melting." -> "prevent them from melting." History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"weight without the use of re-heat." -> "weight without the use of reheat." History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I've got, if these are fixed then I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All above issues dealt with Hammersfan (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues indicated by Nikkimaria and History6042😊 dealth with - Hammersfan (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I know very little about planes, and try to avoid flying in them when at all possible, but I'll at least try to leave some comments. Hog Farm _Talk 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start out with, I'm a bit concerned about some of the sourcing.

The Vic Flintham personal website was identified as having reliability concerns [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service/archive1|in the prior FAC; I'm not seeing where the use of this source has been defended
Chichester High School Old Boys Association appears to be a secondary school alumni association website of some sort; I am not sure that this meets the higher high-quality reliable source standard for FAC. I certainly wouldn't consider anything written by an alumni association of the high school I attended to be a high-quality reliable source
Modern Naval Vessel Design Evaluation Tool looks like a self-published website; again I'm concerned about the high-quality RS qualification
What makes airfighters.com a high-quality reliable source?
Naval-history.net is the personal website of Gordon Smith. I'm sure his stuff is accurate, but as his primary book writing appears to be a World War II at Sea series published by Bertke Publications which looks like a self-publishing arm of one of his co-authors, what makes this clear the stricter high-quality reliable source bar?
What makes Urban Ghosts a high-quality reliable source?
I see that in the prior FAC, it was noted that at least one book praises The Phantom Shrine, but to strengthen a WP:USEBYOTHERS case, is there usage in other reliably-published books?
What makes War History Online a high-quality reliable source?
A lot of the content in the notes is unsourced, such as "The original Phantom Training Flight operated as a dedicated FG.1 conversion unit from 1972 to 1978. The second was raised to operate FGR.2 refresher courses from 1991 to 1992" (an example, there are many others like that).

I'm really not comfortable trying to do a content review until the sourcing concerns can be resolved. Hog Farm _Talk 05:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]