Talk:Curtiss XBTC

Models 96 and 98

According to the source given in the text, Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, the Model 96 was the XBTC-1 and XBTC-2, while the Model 98 was the XBT2C-1. THerefore I willl be updating the arcitle accordingly later today, allowing time for the creator to respond, and moving the page to Curtiss XBTC. I'll also add the XBT2C to the title line of the infobox (when I add it), and the Lead sentence, and make other formatting additions and changes to bring it in line with WP:AIR guidelines at that time. - BillCJ (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In sentence two of Design and Development section I changed "Douglas XBT2D-1 Destroyer" to "XBTD-1." The Destroyer predates the 1943 competition, having started in 1943 as XSB2D--Scout Bomber to replace the Dauntless--and later in 1943/44 was redesigned by Douglas as a single-seat competitor to the XBTC (Curtiss), XBTK (Kaiser Fleetwings), and XBTM (Martin). Consistent with these others, the Destroyer's new designation was XBTD. Because it was not designed specifically to the Navy's 1943 BT specification as were the others, Douglas was uncertain of the XBTD-1's prospects. In June-July 1944 Douglas showed the Navy designs for the XBT2D--the aircraft that eventually was known as the Skyraider. The Navy agreed with Douglas' proposal to halt development of the XBTD Destroyer in favor of the XBT2D Skyraider. So: the Douglas Destroyer was XBTD-1 before cancellation. The Skyraider was XBT2D-1. For this reason I changed the designation in sentence four as well, from XBTD-1 to XBT2D-1.Sonofmartha (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Curtiss XBTC/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been a while! ♦ jaguar 11:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It has! But I'm sure that the other GAN subject areas were receiving the benefits of your attentions even if I wasn't.

Lead

• "The Curtiss XBTC was an prototype" - 'a' prototype
• "for the United States Navy (USN)" - 'USN' isn't mentioned again in the article's body, it's probably best to lose it
• The lead summarises the article per WP:LEAD, taking in account the article's short length

Design and development

• "In January 1942 the Navy" - write out United States Navy in the first instance
  • But it's been the only navy mentioned thus far, so pretty minimal possibility of confusion, IMO.
• "carrier-capable VSB (Scout Bomber)" - perhaps link scout plane. Also does it need to be capitalised?
  • Good idea for the link. I'm inclined to keep the caps because that's how it's referenced in the sources. Probably because it was a formal program in USN naval doctrine
• "but photographs of the mockup dated December are available" - dated from December (1942?)
  • Yep, as mentioned in the previous para
• "was lengthened by 2 ft (0.6 m)" - in all other cases metric is placed first
  • Ummm, really? Only the 20 mm measurement in the first para of the design section. The American military has used a mix to imperial and metric measurement ever since we bought a lot of French artillery during WWI. So both 4.5-inch and 155 mm guns in service at the same time.
• "XBTC-2s consisted of four 20 mm autocannon" - convert to imperial
• "that could handle ordnance up 1,600 pounds in weight" - same here
• "hardpoints were stressed to carry weapons weighing up to 1,000 pounds" - and here
• "after a landing accident with the first prototype on 3 March" - of what year? 1945?
  • Yep, as mentioned two (long) sentences earlier
• "The United States Army Air Forces assigned the designation" - include abbreviation (USAAF)
  • Better I think to replace the abbreviation with a pronoun

Other

• Would it be possible to move the Variants or Operators subsections to the infobox? I'm not sure if the infobox has a field for that or if this is the norm for aircraft articles. Like I said it's been a while!
  • The infobox isn't set up for it. Better, IMO, to keep the infoboxes as short as is reasonable considering that I've had a few complaints about them dominating short-lived ship articles.

This is a solid article which shows its comprehensiveness considering it was short-lived prototype. I enjoyed reading it. The sources are also good and I can see no other issues. Once the above are clarified we can get this promoted. ♦ jaguar 12:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Good to see back here. I'm sure that I'll have more articles available for you if you're of a mind to check back every so often!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll review your articles as soon as you can throw them out. I usually get mixed up with what measurement goes first. UK/US has imperial first, yet I've seen other military articles use metric first. Anyway, with those minor issues addressed I'll be happy to promote this! ♦ jaguar 23:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)