Talk:Cook–Craigie plan

Initial editing work

I have to agree thoroughly with the need to improve this article. I have made some changes to that end, though I believe that still more could be done, so I have left the box in place for now. I have not been able to add anything to the original author's content, so perhaps another contributor would be able to expand the article further. I have added citation requests where I believe they are most necessary. I also think that the last sentence of the first paragraph in particular would benefit from a few specific examples; it is far too vague.

I have removed some content, as follows:
"When the changes settle down, a set of construction jigs are built and laid out on the factory floor, used to hold the various parts together while the aircraft is being built." - Taken from the second paragraph. The tone is not appropriate, but it may still be relevant to the article and worth keeping if it could be improved and expanded upon.
"...often long after the original designs were drawn up." - taken from the end of paragraph two. I think this is a vague statement, and probably stating the obvious when discussing post-war military avaiation development. Again, could be improved and re-added.
"Unfortunately the design was later cancelled, largely for economic and political reasons." - Taken from the reference to the aborted Avro Arrow. Seems to weaken the argument in favour of this development method.

Which brings me to my final comment. I this article does nothing, as it stands, to satisfactorily assess the significance of the Cook-Craigie system, as it fails to present clear arguments for and against beyond a very brief mention of the risks inherent in the development. There is certainly scope for expansion.

If anyone can do more to improve this article, feel free to edit my edits! -- Adrian M. H. 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)