[cyberferret]

I must admit that I picked up on the "SR-1" typo. If this was my local daily rag article, I could forgive, but for a technical publication that is supposed to give us accurate, meaningful data, that immediately sows some distrust that the rest of the information in the article may be suspect. Grammatical errors I can forgive to a certain extent, but getting the designation of the aircraft wrong that is the feature of the article? That is sloppy editing.

[rconti]

They mentioned the SR-1 program again later in the article too. I even had to Google it to make sure it wasn't me with the misunderstanding.

[kevincennis]

I actually didn't even notice that until you put it in quotes just now.

[romwell]

Then there are outright broken sentences like this:

>The 1980s saw an increase in threats capable to countering the SR-71, including improved enemy air defenses and the introduction of the MiG-31, which was armed with the R-33 air-to-air missile could intercept the Blackbird.

This just breaks my mental parsing, since there are so many ways to fix this:

1. ..MiG, which, being armed with the R-33 missile, could intercept the Blackbird;

2. ..MiG, which was armed with the R-33 missile, and could intercept the Blackbird;

3. ..MiG, which was armed with the R-33 air-to-air missile, and therefore could intercept the Blackbird.

(and so on)