Jump to content

Talk:Patrie (airship)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Three small paragraphs is a rather short lead for an article of this length.
    • The Lebaudy République can be linked in the aftermath section and removed from the see also section, which would also have the benefit of getting rid of those odd one-link sub-sections within the see also section.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • What makes ref #18 (Blondel, Dominique) a reliable source?
    • Looking at the level of detail in Blondel's website, he must have had access to the logbooks or other company records. Probably these have not been published but may be available to authors at the aviation museum Le Bourget. I shall write to him today (letter awaiting translation!). --TraceyR (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just heard from Dr. Dominique Blondel, who is the grandchild of Controller-General Théophile Bois, pioneer dirigible pilot and long-time member of the French Air Force. He piloted the Lebaudy, the Patrie, the République and the Liberté. The data on the website come from issue number 154 of "FORCES AÉRIENNES FRANÇAISES", the weekly review of the French Air Force ("Army of the Air") published in December 1959. Unfortunately this issue is not yet available "en ligne" but Dr. Blondel assures me that the information can also be found in the archives of the "Service Historique de l'Armée de Terre" at the Château de Vincennes and in notes and photos made by Théophile Bois himself. Is this enough? --TraceyR (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest adding a note to the reference that gives the information you have just stated: "Information in this reference comes from xxx magazine and and yyy archives". That should be good for GA status, although I would be wary of taking it to FAC. Thank you very much for tracking down this information - it's always fun to work with an editor who is willing to go the extra mile! Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! It's fun to find these people! Thanks to you and to Kyteto for doing the unglamorous review work which maintains Wikipedia standards! I shall be really delighted if the Patrie makes GA status.--TraceyR (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref #16 needs a publisher and access date.
    • What makes ref #22 (Hazemann-Perret, Claude) a reliable source?
    • What makes ref #36 ("1909, Year of the Aeroplane (Part 2)") a reliable source? Needs a publisher.
    • What makes ref #37 ("Dirigibles of Imperial Russia (up to 1917)") a reliable source? Needs a publisher.
    • What makes ref #39 ("Austrian Wings") a reliable source? Needs a publisher.
    • The company provided me by return with the following profile (original formatting ignored;translated roughly as follows):"Austrian Wings is Austria's leading and most-read specialist aviation magazine with more that 80,000 unique visitors per month. Because our editorial staff produces and publishes exclusively aviation matters, we work with numerous partners in the printed media, radio, TV and online areas. Austrian Wings produces material for well-known European TV stations and reports in all areas of aviation, e.g. for and in cooperation with the German TV broadcaster Pro /, for its Business magazine "Galileo". Due to their specialist journalistic competence, our editorial staff have an excellence reputation in the aviation industry and have, for the most part, appropriate qualifications, e.g. as pilots. The hard facts:Austrian Wings is based in Vösendorf near Vienna;we have 25 employees;In addition to classical journalism we also produce and publish video reports in cooperation with our partner V-I-P.tv;We are a valuable partner of numerous national and international news agencies, magazines and TV-formats. Austrian Wings is a legally protected trade name."
    • IMHO they are a "Reliable Source", but since Flight is better known in the English-speaking world we should stick to their ref. --TraceyR (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I have some questions about some of the references, so I am going to hold off on a full prose review until these are addressed. In the meantime, I'm placing the article on hold, as I believe the issues above are fairly easily remedied with a little TLC. Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I shall begin addressing the concerns and make citation improvements in the next 24 hours. Kyteto (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the main contributors to this article I'm delighted that this review is underway - many thanks to Dana boomer for initiating the process. I shall try to help clarify some of the points. I share the reservations about "Blondel, Dominique" (many references), which is a personal website; I shall try to contact him and discover his sources, so that these can be referenced in the article. The "Austrian Wings" online aircraft industry magazine (one reference) 'seems' reliable enough, but I cannot find any information about the publisher. I shall write to the contact address and try to establish who is behind it, how many employees there are etc. I assume that I am not excluded from this process because I wrote large parts of the article myself ... --TraceyR (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TraceyR! You are definitely not excluded from the process based on your past improvement - in fact, the main contributors are generally the ones who nominate articles for GAN. With the various references that I have asked questions on, I am very open to being shown that they are, in fact, reliable. I just couldn't verify that fact for myself, and so asked here so that, either: 1) I could be shown evidence that the source is reliable or 2) the reference could be replaced. Personal websites are generally not considered reliable, unless the author can be shown to be an expert in the field. Industry magazines have slightly more initial credibility, but can't just be someone's personal blog that has been prettied up to look like an official publication (not saying this one is, it's just there are a lot out there like that). It's great to see multiple contributors here willing to improve the article. As I said above, I don't think it's that far from GA status - it's mainly the sources I have concerns above, as what prose I have looked at looks quite good. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I have written to "Austrian Wings" to ask for a company profile but in the meantime have found a reference in Flight to the same event. I'll either replace the current reference or add the Flight ref. Which would be the preferred action? The Blondel references will be harder to replace, I fear, but I'll try to get an email off to him soon. --TraceyR (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that replacing Austrian Wings with Flight would be the best option. Having duplicate cites for non-controversial information is generally frowned upon, and Flight is definitely the better source in this instance. Dana boomer (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone say how to add comments above without messing up the auto-numbering? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will add replies to the above in a minute, but wanted to answer on the auto-numbering - just add another ":" to the preceeding formatting. So, if I used "#::*", then the next indent would be "#:::*". Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned that a bunch of the unreliable refs appear to have just been removed. Are we sure that this information is covered by the next given ref? Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had fully investigated the removed citations, and have either provided substitute where needed or removed where already covered by other references. I did not proceed further than I had already in instances where the unreliable citations are the sole sourcing of the information pertaining to them; as I respect the same concern that you do. All information should still be covered, I spent hours to achieve this level of balance. Kyteto (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)I'm very pleased to hear that! The references are looking much better, so I will probably start on a prose review this evening. Thanks for all of your work on this so far, both of you! Dana boomer (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few tweaks, but otherwise the prose looks quite good. Remaining, I'd still like to see the lead expanded a bit more, and the last Blondel ref replaced, if possible. Dana boomer (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have de-italicised the name Patrie throughout the article. I couldn't find a reference to this usage in the MoS, so I checked the Spitfire article, where the name is not in italics. If it should be in italics after all, please revert! --TraceyR (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted. Classes/types (such as the Spitfire) are not italicized, while individual named ships/aircraft (such as the Patrie) are italicized. So, if each individual Spitfire had a unique name, they would be italicized; however, the class as a whole is not. At this point, I think we're just waiting on a bit of expansion to the lead to make it slightly more proportional to the body and we should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the lead now sufficient; also are there tasks I should be focusing on in regards to this article now? Kyteto (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything now looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. Very nice work, both of you! Dana boomer (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is good news! Thanks for your help in this process, and to Kyteto for the nomination and for all the work on the article to achieve this status. --TraceyR (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS Does the review procedure differ for the other projects which have taken an interest in this article (Military history and Aviation), or is a nomination required for each of these too? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)?[reply]
One GA nomination serves for all projects (as it is an outside of all projects process). However, A-class, which the article has gone through for MILHIST and Aviation, is actually a level above GA, but is unique by project. This is why I changed the one "B" project rating (WP France I think?) to a GA, but left the others alone. Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks once again! From your experience, would this article need a lot of work to get it to FA (if that's the next step up)? --TraceyR (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FA is the next step up. I don't think a ton of work would be needed to bring this up to FA-status, but I'm definitely not an expert on FA-level aircraft articles. In particular, I'm not sure what FAC's position on sourcing to images is... I might suggest a peer review, just for an extra set of eyes, and then perhaps asking one of the MILHIST prose people (User:Dank is the first that comes to mind) to take a look and see what they think. You also may want to look at some of the recent aircraft articles that have gone through FA and see if you can pick up anything that might be missing from this article. Anyway, just my thoughts... Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a thought - and there's plenty to do elsewhere and no hurry! --TraceyR (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrie_(airship)/GA1&oldid=1141728501"