62:
94:
Thanks, I'm working on it. I've clarified the Senate, cancellation, and 'autorotation/not a problem' parts. I thought the Lt. Colonel was one of three officers later implicated, but not sure. I know about the criticism/controversy section issue and really dislike them. I've wanted to move that
71:"At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project" - what year was this? The article also doesn't say how the project survived (did the Clinton Administration decide to save it after the 1992 election?)
37:
I am requesting a peer review of this article. I've been doing improvements for the past few weeks related to a GA review (on hold at the moment) and think this article is getting near A-class level. Thanks.
61:
The lead image seems to be a curious choice given that its rare for the V-22 to be used by paratroopers, and its intended for troops to disembark from the aircraft after they land (I rather like
80:
It seems a bit of an overstatement to say that it "will not be a problem" if the V-22 loses both engines - this is surely only the case if the V-22 is flying near a suitable landing site
110:
127:
There's some info in the Norton book I have and 1-2 media sources already used in the page mention
Clinton admin supporting it. UPDATE: I added some text of that over the weekend. -
95:
text to more fitting places, but could not get agreement on the talk page in late 2008. I'll have to do more reading on the
Clinton administration support before adding anything. -
21:
192:
176:
136:
122:
104:
89:
47:
17:
57:
This article is in very good shape, and I agree that it's close to A class. My suggestions for further improvements are:
172:
31:
157:
in the Flight testing and design changes section, "USS Wasp" - the name of the ship should be in italics;
168:
68:"faced considerable dialogue in the Senate" is rather unclear - how did the project talk to the Senate?
74:
In general 'Controversy' sections should be avoided with their content worked into the article's prose
188:
132:
100:
43:
183:
Fixed most of that. Will work on adding the retrieved dates when making other edits. Thanks. -
118:
85:
161:
184:
128:
96:
39:
160:
in the same sentence as USS Wasp the date range "1991-92" should have an endash per
114:
81:
167:
some of the citations to web sites don't have accessdates (Retrieved dates).
113:
may be of use (I haven't read it so can't specifically recommend it).
77:
Were the allegations against Lt. Colonel Odin
Lieberman ever proven?
111:
The Dream
Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey
153:
It looks quite good to me. I only have a couple of suggestions:
8:
18:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history
7:
28:
1:
109:The recently published book
209:
193:17:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
177:01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
137:17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
123:07:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
105:18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
90:04:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
48:22:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
32:Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey
65:image as an alternate)
200:
169:AustralianRupert
149:AustralianRupert
208:
207:
203:
202:
201:
199:
198:
197:
151:
55:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
206:
204:
196:
195:
180:
179:
165:
158:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
78:
75:
72:
69:
66:
54:
51:
34:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
205:
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
159:
156:
155:
154:
148:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
106:
102:
98:
93:
92:
91:
87:
83:
79:
76:
73:
70:
67:
64:
60:
59:
58:
52:
50:
49:
45:
41:
33:
30:
23:
19:
152:
56:
36:
22:Peer review
185:Fnlayson
129:Fnlayson
97:Fnlayson
40:Fnlayson
20: |
162:WP:DASH
115:Nick-D
82:Nick-D
53:Nick-D
16:<
189:talk
173:talk
133:talk
119:talk
101:talk
86:talk
63:this
44:talk
191:)
175:)
135:)
121:)
103:)
88:)
46:)
187:(
171:(
164:;
131:(
117:(
99:(
84:(
42:(
38:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.