Talk:Concorde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Concorde has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Concorde is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Concorde at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

Pepsi sponsorship deal[edit]

The web link in the reference to the Independent article describing the sponsorship deal with Pepsi doesn't link to the whole article. I believe this link is to the correct article. However, whilst the date and overall subject matter are correct, nowhere does it mention anything about Concorde. I can't access the El Mundo article also referenced due to a combination of the website being in Spanish and it apparently requiring a paid subscription to access the archive. Tdf4638 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Regarded as an aviation icon" from lead section[edit]

The aircraft has been regarded as an aviation icon and an engineering marvel,[1]...

  1. ^ Jury, Louise (16 March 2006). "Concorde beats Tube map to become Britain's favourite design". The Independent. London. 

The citation given here does not support the article text. The article from The Independent is about a "favourite British design" poll. It says nothing about engineering, nor does it imply anything about being "regarded by many" regarded as "an icon". To make such an inference looks like original research. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Since, according to the revision to the article at 00:23, 23 July 2016, the article discusses many people praising the aircraft type, the lead-section sentence should be able to stand alone without a citation. This particular citation does not actually serve to verify the statement in question. However, my previous removal of the citation was reverted. I propose getting rid of it again, for the above reasons. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Pending input from other editors, I have again removed the citation to The Independent. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest its replacement.
The contest, organised by BBC 2's The Culture Show and the Design Museum in London, saw nearly 212,000 votes cast in a process which began with 25 iconic designs chosen by experts, including the mini skirt, the Catseye, the E-type Jaguar and the Penguin paperback book....would certainly justify the "iconic." Anmccaff (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The citation has since been restored and then removed again by another editor. I think this is just as well, since the only person who can verifiably (yet indirectly) be found describing Concorde as "iconic" here is the author of the article themselves. However, "regarded as an aviation icon" is vague and doesn't convey meaningful factual information or establish context for the reader. I think the statement should be rewritten using more matter-of-fact language, per Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy. Attributing the view in question to a particular source, if possible, would be a simple fix. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Since there have been no other objections, and since the "Public perception" section doesn't contain any more information about praise and criticism of Concorde than what appears in the Independent piece, I rewrote that portion here to more accurately summarize the material in the article. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the highest praise for Concorde came from sculptor Henry Moore sometime back in the 1980s, I cannot remember the quote, but it was along the lines of Concorde being the pinnacle (or epitome) of Modern Art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.147 (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
"Concorde Special - Flawed Icon", and "Concorde flies into history" "Both carriers regret the withdrawal of their marketing icon". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I added a quotation from the first article here. Icon, however, is still the kind of vague peacock term that could be used to mean anything – "marketing icon" – what is that supposed to mean? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It was Sir Hugh Casson, who described Concorde as: "A piece of twentieth-century sculpture" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Two-part interview with Concorde pilot John Hutchinson on YouTube here: Part 1: [2] - Part 2: [3]

made link for mention of "low-bypass turbofan engines"[edit]

The article states that "The Tu-144S had a significantly shorter range than Concorde, due to its low-bypass turbofan engines." Readers might reasonably be expected to wonder what "low-bypass turbofan engines" are, so I've linked this term to Turbofan#Low-bypass_turbofan.

-- 179.210.201.86 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained removal[edit]

There is a vandal who is obsessed with deleting my edits. Stop it or you will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.208 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I havn't edit-warred to add or remove the image in question - it is worth noting that it, as the caption clearly indicates, a photo of a SCALE MODEL of a Concorde, not a real aircraft. Prehaps you might present convincing arguments here as to why you think that this photo should remain when the article has plenty of photos of real aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)