Talk:Bede BD-5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Smithsonian Institution-related (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Smithsonian Institution-related, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Scott Manning killed in BD-5J crash[edit]

A "BD-5 jet" has just gone down near Ottawa, possibly killing the unknown pilot: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/16/plane-crash.html?ref=rss Somegeek 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

More details, pilot's identity: http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to-planecrash20060616.html?ref=rss Somegeek 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of section[edit]

However heart touching or well written the section on Scott Manning is, I feel that it should be removed from this piece for a few reasons:

  1. Wikipedia is not the format for things of this nature. Not only does this violate POV rules, it also conflicts with wikipedia's mission as a source for facts and information.
  2. This section is also written in the first person, which both exaggerates the POV of the piece and, once more, conflicts with wikipedia’s encyclopedia nature.
  3. And finally, it is, quite frankly, not really relevant information on the airplane itself.

If anyone wants to make an entry on the pilot or the incident, please do, and link to it in this entry. I just don’t think that this section really works...

--Schuyler s. 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Schuyler s. on all points. However, I felt that the section had enough interesting content, and that Scott was noteworthy enough to support a new article. I have copied the most-developed version of the section from this article's history and (with very minor edits) used it to create Scott Manning. It still suffers from all the flaws that Schuyler s. noted. I hope that the original author and others interested in Scott will develop it in to a complete article according to Wikipedia conventions. Somegeek 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Smallest Jet?[edit]

The BD5-J that has the Guiness Record has never actually flown, and the man who built it has it up for sale. Many in the aviation community doubt that it will ever fly at the weight that it was certified at because of a lack of safety features. 69.207.190.17 02:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Paul Tomblin

  • It is usually considered a good idea to limit your comments to subjects in which you have at least an inkling of knowledge. The BD-5J which currently has the Guinness Record has already passed its initial condition inspection (which resulted in a log entry by an A&P finding the aircraft and engine to be airworthy) and is in fact overengineered for safety, with changes such as the only solid i-beam spar on a BD-5, four times stronger than the tubular spar, a fact that was verified independently by a Dutch aeronautical engineer and Jim Bede himself. It is currently awaiting assignment of an inspector from the Miami FSDO for its airworthiness certificate. Guinness knew the aircraft had not flown yet when it was given the record. Flybd5 04:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect date.[edit]

How can someone crash a plane on june 27th of 2007 i fI am reading about it on the 24th of the same month?

Rodrigo Ramos ramos_trabado@yahoo.com

Fixed. But surely it was obvious this was a typo?! Maury 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Acapella 100[edit]

I'm considering removing this section. It's not that it's bad information, but it's really almost trivia. It was a builder-made one-off modification that didn't work out. I'm not sure that's really in keeping with the article, which is talking about the mainline developments. Comments? Maury 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Please note the advert tag indicates the need to rewrite the article from a neutral point of view to make it more encyclopedic and read less like a promotional piece. See WP:NPOV --Ronz 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Get real, the article is extremely well written and there is no NPOV. Bzuk 00:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
See WP:TALK for guidelines on how to contribute to discussion pages. Thanks!
If no one has objections based upon policies/guidelines, then the tag should be restored. This is an issues separate from just finding references. NPOV requires reliable sources independent from the topic to determine proper balance of information presented in the article. Without such independent sources, we cannot determine how to balance the article, or even determine what article is important enough to present. --Ronz 15:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

Let's stop with the edit-warring and discuss the problems. Edit-warring over a tag is absurd. --Ronz 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF is WP:WIKIQUETTE?? Shot info 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette. The issue is not the tag. I am all for discussing if it really deserves the tag. The issue is Ronz dropping it all over the place as if it was a god-given right. The Wikiquette policy clearly says that NPOV issues are discussed first to reach some sort of consensus, not imposed on an my way or the highway attitude. Flybd5 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but could you please indicate where it says that a tag cannot be placed on an article without prior discussion? --Ronz 15:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines for use of the advert and other associated tags are clear about this. Only advertising blatantly masquerading as articles should be tagged. There is zero policy statement that says advert tags should be used in the way you are using them. Therefore, the policy of discuss first, then consensus then edit applies by default. What you are doing is not only outside policy, it is also unnecessarily disruptive, which is also outside of WP guidelines. Flybd5 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. You didn't answer my question. The link you provided is not a guideline for the advert tag. I don't understand the edit-warring over a tag of all things. The tag is to alert others to help with article. --Ronz 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Moved from the article for discussion. I don't see how these meet WP:EL and WP:SPAM:

--Ronz 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree for the first one (after all, if there is no company, how can their be an "official" site) but the second one is the manufacturer. I must admit, I didn't realise the Turbomeca is part of this group. Personally I would prefer the link to them rather than the overall "Group". But this is just my opinion. Shot info 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I am the owner of the BD-5 web site. It is NOT a commercial site, it is the only comprehensive fully no-charge info resource site for the BD-5. Go look at it yourself. Flybd5 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for disclosing your WP:COI, which I was going to ask about. Please read WP:COI and decide how you would like to proceed. --Ronz 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Hmm, possibly there are WP:COI issues then. I suggest that you recuse yourself from the editing over this particular website then. Shot info 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SAFRAN has it's own article, so I've created an See also section for it. This eliminates any need for an external link that I can see. --Ronz 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't so hard, was it? Could have done that in the first place. Stop stalking me by the way. Flybd5 01:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We could've if you had decided to stop editwarring by reverting normal editing practises. BTW, the link you are after is WP:HARASS (or WP:STALK). Shot info 01:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Barking up the wrong tree again. The initial edit Ronz made on NPOV reasons was NOT normal editing practise. You bring up the issue in the talk page first, not make the edit first. What Ronz is doing is akin to shoot first, ask questions later, and that is NOT normal editing practice. Flybd5 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Dude, he removed an EL, per WP:EL and WP:SPAM. So far you have cried a bit of wolf with "wholesale edits" down to two suspect ELs, one of which you have a COI with. So if that means you are going to write legions about other editors, then go for it. It can be argued that Ronz [1] is a bit more experienced with "normal editing practise" having edited a few more articles and for little bit longer than yourself [2] however. Shot info 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
More experienced? Hmm. WP:EL says the link to bd5.com is admissible under items 3 and 4 of What should be linked?. The link also fails scrutiny on WP:SPAM because it has no commercial or sales or advertising nature of benefit to the alleged COI infringer, and is intended to promote the subject of the article (the aircraft), not a particular person. What's your interpretation of WP:EL and WP:SPAM here? How does that link fall under that interpretation (short of a mile-long stretch)? Flybd5 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:EL#AVOID specifically #12. Your site is not a WP:RS. If you are aware of 'normal wikipedia practise' you would be aware that personal websites are removed all the time. Yours is no different. Shot info 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that one falls on its face too. Ten years on the web, referenced and used by such organizations as the Smithsonian, Aero-News Network (largest aviation daily in the world), etc. Try again some other time. Your opinion is no different than most other opinions out there. Flybd5 02:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You have a coi. RS or not is irrelevant. --Ronz 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That's the thing about opinions, they're much like our rear exhaust ports, everyone has them and they all stink. That's why there's a policy of discussion and constructive engagement, not harassment and stalking. Flybd5 13:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

The article has large numbers of paragraphs with no references. It is possible that the reference at the end of the section is the actual reference, but it is unclear. I don't really want to slap fact tags everwhere, but since Flybd5 seems to have a more intimate knowledge of where the info is sourced from, perhaps he/she would like to add them? Shot info 00:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention it. I didn't make those entries, but look at where many of them point. The sources are the repository of knowledge I created for the BD-5. Look at the links. Do you NOW get it? My site is not COI, it's part of the encyclopedia effort, in this case for the BD-5. That's why you DISCUSS first, not blindly delete first. Oh, and BTW, the plate on the Smithsonian museum for the BD-5 they have references me as a source as well. Flybd5 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You haven't read the WP:COI policy yet have you (can tell by how you are using the "COI" expression above). BTW, I'm not going to continue to argue policy with you that you plainly haven't reviewed. When you wish to make the article better, let us know. Shot info 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Let "us" know? Ah, so now you think you can violate WP:OWN too? You so funny. :P Flybd5 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please follow WP:TALK. Thanks! --Ronz 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion to all parties, keep cool and leave this alone while an admin looks over the situation. FWWI Bzuk 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC).

"Related content" section[edit]

I tried to move this to "See also" but then found it's not so easy to do so. Are there standards for airplanes to follow to list such information? Seems strange to place this below "External links." --Ronz 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably ok to leave it as is. Shot info 01:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be a standard way of presenting such aircraft info. --Ronz 01:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK??[edit]

WTF is this? "Possible WP:SOCK. Please discuss why this link doesn't fail WPL#AVOID on talkpage" So, the story is that other editors might also be chiming in pro or con, but when someone makes a change that may support my argument you accuse them of being sockpuppets? Oh, I can't wait for other editors to look at this. Flybd5 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Or a meatpuppet. Either way, this new editor's sole contribution is to spam and edit-war. --Ronz 03:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
And yours is what? To disrupt? Make baseless accusations? Hmm. Anyone is free to look at the work I've done here, as well as on the Spanish Wikipedia. Reach your own conclusions. Compare. I have nothing to hide. Can you say the same? Flybd5 03:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the Spanish Wikipedia. --Ronz 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow... this amazes me. First, after restoring the article, after noticing a glaring omission, I get accused of being a SockPuppet??? Now you're telling me that I did it to spite you? Nice. This is EXACTLY why my Daughter's college has 10 rules on references. Rule #1, #2, #4, #8 and #10 all state "Wikipedia is not a valid reference." You've made assumptions about my motives that are simply not accurate. I modifed the site becuase that link belongs there. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't accuse me of doing something that you have no knowledge of. (In fact, I didn't even realize you had a "spam and edit-war" going on until my update dissapeared - you can check the logs!) What amazes me even more is that you actually spend your time doing useless edits like that, instead of actually helping the community. --wjsteele 04:12, 10 October 2007

"Helping the Community" = [3] Shot info 04:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference tag[edit]

The article has a lot of references, but when you read it, the references are to oddball notes, rather than most of the claims. The reference tag is perfectly valid and it is a calling card to other editors to review the article and improve it. Like what happens at a lot of other Wikipedia articles. I personally don't mind the advert tag going but really, the article needs to be improved and we need to advertise that fact to the Community. I'm not going to revert, lest it be taken the wrong way, however adding a tag is perfectly acceptable to normal Wikipedia practise. Shot info 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of that is understandable but the fact that the tags are being "hung" on the article before what has undoubtably become a contentious topic is fully discussed is not normal practise. Whenever a major change is contemplated or a debatable question is brought up, it is contingent on editors to seek a consensus on the talk page before engaging in a revert-edit war. What has been done is to put the article back to its original state and then the editor with a question as to veracity or use of references, takes up the point here, seeks a consensus and then proceeds with revisions that will improve the article. I do not support that the article is poorly written or researched as I am aware that an experienced editor recently made a major revision of this article. I will be contacting this editor/admin to have him look at the article again. FWIW Bzuk 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
In my experience here in WP (which obviously is different to yours), adding a tag doesn't make an article contentious. Instead it is just an "advertisment" to other editors that there appears to be a problem. Normally after a bit of discussion, some edits, lo and behold, the tags are removed. It is only because of recent events that this is any more than what I consider to be normal practise...I mean, there's been reports and all sorts of stuff going on just because one editor got a little possessive. Wikipedia can be edited, by anybody. Obviously it can be reverted by anybody as well, but this leads to uglyness and now everybody has their backs up. Personally I was going to put cite tags on everybody paragraph that didn't have a reference, but I thought it superiour to have it on the top of the article, to save 50% of the article from having [citation needed] against it. Different horses for different courses I suppose :-) Shot info 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:CITE#Unsourced_material. Shot info 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I perfectly agree and in most cases, the simple addition of a <refimprove> tag would have been appreciated but since this appeared in the midst of an edit war, it simply acerbates the problem and is not helpful. I would caution that everyone needs to take a step back, keep cool and come back to the talk page before proceeding. FWIW, count your reverts- even after you were asked to go to the talk page. I will call on admin Maury M to take a look at the article. Bzuk 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
I agree with the reasoning BUT lets ignore the editwar bit and just move on. Article needs references? Yes? So lets wait for an editor to .... edit and add some refences. When referenced, tag can come off. Presumably Maury will provide this info? Shot info 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
and my advice is still the same, keep cool, stay out of the edit warring and don't forget to read the talk page: your analysis of the need for references was not universally accepted. This is not an article that has a wealth of reference material available as I tried to supplement the information myself and found that all I could find was a series of contemporary journals and magazine articles. Finding more than those reference sources may prove difficult. However, this article will be reviewed shortly. FWIW Bzuk 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to take a backwards step for some time and see what happens. It's time for my chill pill.... :-) Shot info 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, I think I saw that somewhere else... [:¬∆ Bzuk 07:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
LOL! Deja vu, eh? :) Flybd5 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Entire article poorly sourced[edit]

I've gone over the entire article and all the notes, and there are not nearly enough sources for what's written. Note however that I've not checked any of the references in the "Bibliography" section. I think a good next step would be to change the bibliography references so there is a clear indication of where each is being used per WP:V --Ronz 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you know what is in need of cites or refs, mark them in the article and I'll start working on that. Flybd5 14:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns[edit]

While the "Deliveries end" sub-section is better sourced, are WP:BLP issues given the poor sourcing and controversial claims regarding Jim Bede's business practices. These claims can be removed immediately and without further comment per WP:BLP, though I'd hope editors would discuss them instead. --Ronz 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark them as cites or refs needed and I'll work on finding sources or suggest deletion. Flybd5 14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jim_Bede and Talk:Jim_Bede. Once the matter is solved there, it can be addressed here as well. --Ronz 19:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography[edit]

The references in the "Bibliography" section were all added by Bzuk, and in edits that make it impossible to determine how or even if they are being used as references:

We need to sort out if and how these are being used. --Ronz 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to find a source of info on guidelines for refs vs bibliographies. I agree as it stands now it is confusing. Flybd5 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent tagging[edit]

All the latest efforts seem to be linked to an individual editor's actions and now constitute a kind of "panic", see WP:PANIC. A number of suggestions were previously made on this page for editors to keep cool and have a dispationate approach to the subject. An experienced editor and admin who was involved in a major rewrite of the article has already been approached to review the article. Any continuing efforts to improve the article are appreciated but give the review some time to take effect. FWIW Bzuk 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC). I've tagged the article to invite others' attention and assistance. I'm sorry that you disagree. --Ronz 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not necessarily disagree with the effort to improve the article but I do question the sense of urgency that is being imparted by the tagging. {Refimprove} is perfectly acceptable and other tags may work but are they really necessary given the discussion already present on this talk page? FWIW, this set of tags appeared in the aftermath of an edit war wherein all parties were cautioned to take a "step back" and cool the rhetoric. Bzuk 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

References and Further reading[edit]

If the editor who is making all the changes can read the edit summary, these were references placed in the further reading and were moved there only temporarily until the sources can be accessed. Due to the use of a new template the further reading should now go into the references section because of a change in the font size that results on some browsers. FWIW Bzuk 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure I understand. The "Further reading" section is a standard. You just want to use it as a temporary holding location? Why is the formatting so important? --Ronz 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've already indicated that these were sources that were used in a revision of the article. When these were challenged because citations were not provided, a temporary compromise was forwarded where these sources were not removed but "parked" in the further reading section. The new {refbegin} and {refend} templates do change the font size and this has still not been addressed except for some particularly nasty rewriting that takes place. A solution has been to place the further reading section "nested" into the references because in many cases the only reason for their addition is simply that no citations directly appear from the source, yet the materials represented more information on the topic. FWIW, an admin is already coming to read/review the article to assist in its improvement.Bzuk 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the explanation! --Ronz 20:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I see you decided not to have a Further reading section. I think that's a better solution since they are all references.
Do we need the duplication between the inline references and the list below (eg Winchester)? --Ronz 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In using Harvard citations, it is a "quick" guide to the reference source, in other words it is a "pointer" to the complete bibliographic record for the source of information. This is standard practice when a reference source has multiple entries yet relisting each citation in a Modern Language Association (MLA) format would result in an unnecessarily complex record. What the inline citations have been accomplishing is a type of endnote which is also keyed to a bibliographic list. Therefore each list acts in complement of each other. Don't get me started on cataloging and reference protocols. I was a librarian for 33+ years in another life and since, have been an author and editor so I will "wax poetic" for hours on the most mundane minutiae that will make your eyes tear over. FWIW Bzuk 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the humor! It's much needed here.
I like to encourage inline references and discourage others. It makes the application of WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV almost impossible if there are references listed without indication of where they are used. On the other hand, I understand that I've created a great deal of chaos by trying to encourage stricter interpretations of policy to this article. My apologies if my questions and citing of policies come across a bit aggressive. --Ronz 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, If you note above – Harvard Citations and MLA tracings actually interlace and provide a page reference which is repeated ad nauseum if the entire record is indicated in whole each time a new citation from a different page in the same source has to be referenced. I have over the period of a year, gradually adapted to the formats and idioms of this Wikiwacky world and can now catalog with the best of the tacky Wiki templates by using "scratch" cataloging, a device I would not wish upon my most virulent enemy, but it does work. FWIW Bzuk 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
While there's no need for a reference for every sentence, anything contentious or questionable should be sourced. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." --Ronz 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Now this point is entirely without question, and a number of editors have already taken a look at this article to address that very issue. As indicated previously, researching does take time and the primary editors involved in the crafting of the article have already or will shortly offer their contributions. My contention was that a sense of decorum had to be reestablished in the discourse that was taking place in this forum as well as in the edit summaries and in edits that were taking place in the main article. It appeared to me that the raging arguments were a "bit over the top" and that the very first steps in discussion and review were being shunted aside in favour of thrusts and parries (now you know what sport I took up at University). FWIW Bzuk 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Guinness World Record[edit]

Per WP:NPOV, unless a independent source is provided to determine proper WP:WEIGHT, the content should be removed. Note that one of the persons involved is an editor here who is currently the subject of an open WP:COIN report. --Ronz 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait until editors have made revisions which is ongoing. If you wish, mark a contested area with a request for a citation. Reverting is considered a serious decision especially in the midst of a review and revision of an article undertaken by administrators and experienced editors. Read: Help:Reverting. This is the the exact wording:
"Do
  • Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
  • Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  • If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
Do not
  • Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
  • Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
  • There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." FWIW Bzuk 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC).
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
"Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people."
"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." --Ronz 02:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My jocular retort is: The editor/admin/fac totum who made the primary revision is presently engaged in reviewing the article. This is an article essentially about an aircraft project and not a "true" biography; it is listed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft project. Removing or reverting information especially when under discussion or contention by others, is not advisable... and who said this article was "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" when there are 35 citations in a small/medium-sized article and seven bibliographical references? FWIW, this is "above" the usual standard established for this type of article and article size, generally none or very few. [:¬∆ Bzuk 04:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

FWIW I agree with you. After reviewing other aircraft articles there is almost zero citation. As I am not a member of this particular wikiproject, I'm certainly not going to jump in and alter everything, but it should be noted that this project needs to consider that their articles do fall short in citations and references, compared to other wikiprojects (biographies as an example). But wikipedia doesn't need to change overnight. Just my opinion, which is why I have decided just to improve the Jim Bede BLP as it these articles I am more familar with. Shot info 04:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a move to improve the aircraft articles in general as the usual submissions smack of fancruft; you have to see the latest Italian aircraft articles to appreciate how low we can sink. Nevertheless, I have a few aircraft history-related (biography) articles that I have written from "scratch" such as Amelia Earhart and Alexander Graham Bell that are not the typical slipshod standard. Check those out to see the polar opposite, I reference every comma twice... IMHO, in the case of the Bede BD-5, there just weren't many textual sources to access, but there is the GA recommended "one cite for every main passage." FWIW Bzuk 05:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

New online article on small jet aircraft in Air and Space Magazine[edit]

David Noland (February 2008). "The Elusive Dream: The Minijet, the Weejet, and other good ideas that went nowhere.". Air and Space Magazine.  This is published by the Smithsonian Institution.

It mentions the BD5-J. I hope it is considered fair use to quote the entire mention of the BD-5 here on the Talk page:

Bede BD-5J—Perhaps no airplane has inspired more excitement among private pilots than the jet version of Jim Bede’s tiny BD-5 homebuilt kit airplane. Powered by a French TRS-18 turbojet of 225 pounds thrust, the BD-5J first flew in 1973, and became an instant superstar at airshows, performing previously unheard-of maneuvers like the quadruple vertical snap roll. Bede Aircraft went bankrupt before any complete kits were delivered, but a number of determined builders have carried on, and a handful of BD-5Js are flying today. With its aerobatic prowess, miniscule size, and space-ship looks, the BD-5J remains the epitome of the private pilot’s jet fantasy. Hollywood liked its look, too; James Bond (played by Roger Moore) flew one in the opening scenes of the 1983 movie Octopussy.

I don't know if this can qualify as a reference for any claims currently in the article, but if so, it might be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)