Talk:Lockheed Martin A-4AR Fightinghawk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

cleanup tag

I dont know exactly why is here. I think I wrote the article clearly enough. Could someone clarify please ?. If you mean grammar It should be replaced by copyedit --Jor70 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about the copyedit tag. Fixed. Good article, BTW! - Aerobird 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! What do you think about changing the start rating to something up ? --Jor70 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it needs a little smoothing - I may work on that, in between the other 821 articles on my watchlist of course - but once that's done B Class is a distinct possibility. - Aerobird 02:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciated it. Pls tell me if specific information is needed. I have lot of photos too but I think we may have a license issue. --Jor70 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove article

Why does this article exist? If we write an article for every A-4-version, no-one will find anything anymore: A-4A, A-4B, A-4C, A-4E, TA-4E, A-4F, TA-4F, A-4G, TA-4G, A-4H, TA-4H, TA-4J, A-4K, TA-4K, A-4KU, TA-4KU, A-4L, A-4M, OA-4M, A-4N, A-4PTM, A-4P, A-4Q, A-4AR, AF-1 (A-4KU), A-4S, TA-4S, A-4SU. Did I miss any? Put it in the A-4-article! --cobatfor 17:05 19 Aug 2008 (UTC)

"oppose" This is a significantly different variant compared to the one from which it was developed (the A-4M). If all the details for all the Skyhawk's related developments were to be included in the main article, it'd become too extended and potentially confusing for a casual reader. That's why there are other wikiarticles for specific variants of this aircraft (as for example, the
A-4S
). And as long as these articles are linked from the main A-4 one, it'd be easy to find them!
If you believe to have good reasons for deleting this article, I'd suggest you to raise your proposal to the "Military Aviation Wikiproject" consideration, so several editors can express their opinions. Kind Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not suitable referenced (yet?)

Hi, I've just added the "unreferenced" tag, as the article does not have online citations and references that can help comply with wikiipedia "verifiability" guidelines/policies. Having said that, IMHO the article seems adequate (just needs that improvement). Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Martin you what?

It would only be Lockheed Martin if they were the original manufacturers. Please don't go down the silly Boeing Harrier etc. route.

LockMart was the prime contractor for the rebuild/upgrade. To my knowledge, McDD/Boeing had nothing to do with that. I've added McDD to the A-4 link in the Lead sentence to make it clear who made the original airframes. - BilCat (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

still A-4

To truly understand why the A-4 ( and Mirage III) are still the more "capable" jet of the FAA we must first understand what is happening in Argentina. The different civilian goverments who took power since 1983 have a profound ill-feeling against the armed forces , even when they have already gave multiple signs of humiliation against the current political class and greatly transformed themselfs from what they were until the nineties. They are more respected abroad than at home ( see UN sec Ban Ki-moon words this week ). Anyway, back to the point, there were mutliple offers since the 1990s to the FAA .e.g.

The Argentine civilian governments refused to modernize the armed forces, and this is not just aircraft related. The most likely "winners" for the upcoming presidential elections of next october had already announced they will maintain this path — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.152.78 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording improvement needed

The wording in the last half of "Operational history" doesn't look right. Can an experienced editor please help improve it? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lockheed Martin A-4AR Fightinghawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lockheed Martin A-4AR Fightinghawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_A-4AR_Fightinghawk&oldid=1208318527"