Talk:Comp Air Jet

Homebuilt jet...

Doesn't that strike anyone else as absurdly dangerous? 24.205.34.217 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

This page seems solid so far, but still needs some touch ups to help it grow. The positives I think are the picture (which helps the viewer relate) and the format guideline. Also, towards the bottom of the page the "related material" would also be helpful to a curious viewer. Some weaknesses I felt were the lack of information in the categories and the futile background information. Also, there is no why section in your article. Why (more specifically then "homebuilding" were these Comp Air Jets invented? Just a thought to help you expand this article.

Mrholman (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, it all hangs on finding references to add more text. If you have refs you can post them here and other editors will work them into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

peer review by Ccogar

The picture, sidebar, linking, and format all make this article appear professional and it looks as though everything adheres to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The writing is also neutral and (thus far) well written, but it is not comprehensive or well-researched - what references did you use? Where else could the reader find additional information other than the manufacturer's website? Consider other aspects of the plane as well. Such as it's conception/history, and perhaps any controversies or safety risks concerning it - real or potential. You could also briefly compare this particular jet to other similar kinds of jets. Just a few suggestions! The page has a solid skeleton, it's just lacking a lot of detail. Ccogar (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review By Levi Michael

Well-written: I thought the content that was published on the page was well written. For the most part it was logical and professional.

Comprehensive: The page seems to be off to a good start but needs more substance before it will become comprehensive and progressively understandable.

Well-researched: The page needs to be more in depth and researched. Also, along with research the page needs more citations in order to protect its accuracy.

Neutral: The page does not show bias and presents views fairly.

Formatted appropriated: This page had solid presentation and follows Wikipedia style guidelines. Looked similar to many other official Wikipedia pages.

Leviburt (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Coreyjweb (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your page is headed in the right direction but could definitely benefit from more sources and in depth information

Well Written: The material provided thus far is well written but there is definitely not enough information to satisfy a curious reader.

Comprehensive: Here, I would like to see more sections for instance: why a person would consider "homebuilding" of something to dangerous as a personal aircraft, why it isn't any more dangerous to homebuild. more information than the dimensions of the completed aircraft

Well researched: Could benefit from more research and citing of sources. Perhaps articles written in response to the aircrafts invention or pilot reviews. Something more to establish credibility.

Neutral: Very neutral.

Formatted Appropriate: The format is well done, but I would like to see a "Contents" section at the top for rapid navigation, as well as more references and some inline citations of those references. Overalll its a good article that can definitely stand to be made better, but its headed in the right direction.Coreyjweb (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)