Jump to content

Talk:General Aircraft Hotspur

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 09:24, 2 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WPAVIATION}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleGeneral Aircraft Hotspur has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2009Good article nomineeListed

New edit

[edit]

Please see: [1]] for another "take" on this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I've responded on your talkpage, Bzuk. Skinny87 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.. and vice versa. FWiW, perhaps we should stay on this "common page?" Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
There are probably too many pictures for the article - several are breaking up the side of the page in Firefox, and I think two or three at most would be sufficient. Skinny87 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "standard" if there is such a thing for WP:Aircraft is five illustrations for a minor article and 10 for a major one. I am using Firefox on two different computers and don't see a problem? with the images? FWiW, I placed one image for each section and all of them are public domain photographs from either the Imperial War Museum collection or in the case of the unusual last photo, the official RCAF archives. Perhaps my sketch of the Twin Hotspur may not be of any use then. Bzuk (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Hmmm, well it seems like the last two pictures, apart from the sketch, are cutting off the grey lines for their sections and look a bit awkward, but I guess that doesn't matter. The Twin sketch is great, but might be too much, especially where it is, in the details of the Mk II. Skinny87 (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a problem fitting the drawing in without making a mess of the sections and it looked like the only place that had sufficient "white space" was the specifications table which is all on the left side of the page, leaving the right side blank. FWiW, the diagram is labeled and the drawing is such that no one will mistake it for the information in the specs table. I am still trying to find out more about the postwar disposition of the Hotspurs, as they did end up in Canada and the United States, among other locations. Bzuk (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

(od)It's a great sketch, and thanksa for doing it, I just think it's kinda out of place, especially with a Mk II above it that would probably look better there instead; that might also allow the other two pics to be moved down slightly so they don't cut off the grey lines. They still look a bit awkward to me - I think it's because there's so little text. Skinny87 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter where the drawing is placed, it is "jarring" as it creates a big shift in the "works". The only reason I tried my hand at a Photoshop drawing was that I couldn't find a public domain image of the Twin. The Mk II above it is actually the only image in the public archives of Canada of an RCAF Hotspur so I thought it might fit better with the operators section. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

copyedit

[edit]

Rewrote cumbersome language (removing bits like "Although originally", avoiding "predicated against" and clarifying needlessly vague "Due to limitations in its design") to clarify the point: the design was simply too small to be of use on the battlefield.

The bit about "excelling" as a trainer, well... it reads as very faint praise indeed (almost an euphemism for "failed design") but I'll let it stand. CapnZapp (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Aircraft Hotspur. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Aircraft_Hotspur&oldid=1202241498"