Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Archive
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-class review, in light of the article's improvements following successful GA assessment and incorporation of suggestions from FA sibling article Boeing 767. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve - article is properly cited and is structured well. Almost FA grade, but I wouldn't go there just yet. ANDROS1337TALK 19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compdude123's review
[edit]I haven't done much editing to this article, so I'm going to take the liberty to review it.
- Lead – In the first sentence it says that the 757 was "built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes from 1981 to 2004," but in the infobox, it says "1982–2004." Why doesn't the text agree with the infobox? Other than that, everything in the lead looks fine to me. —Compdude123 16:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Development – Looks great, every sentence is sourced. Will take a closer look soon.
More reviewing to come... —Compdude123 16:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good eye, thanks for catching the infobox date, it's been corrected. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's my review of the rest of this article:
- The development section looks great. The only issue I see is the arrangement of pictures in the "Further developments" section. It would make more sense to have the Shanghai Airlines photo go first, with the winglets photo afterwards in order to better match the surrounding text. —Compdude123 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Design – In the second paragraph of the "Overview" section, where it mentions that the 757 was the "the first jetliner to offer carbon brakes as a factory option," you should say when they were first offered. From looking at the ref, it appears as though they weren't offered from the very start of development. Other than that the section is just marvelous. —Compdude123 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Variants – Looks great. I don't see many specific issues with the section. —Compdude123 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The operators section looks good, but I have one question: In the orders/ deliveries table, wouldn't it make more sense to have it start at 1978 instead of 2005? That would make more sense. —Compdude123 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidents and accidents section is great. I like that it's written in prose rather than list format that is seen at so many other aviation articles. —Compdude123 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the specifications section, it's hard to read the text in the image, and clicking on the image to show the file description page doesn't help. I would suggest contacting the image uploader asking him to make the text bigger. —Compdude123 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, this is a great article and is pretty close to FA status and definitely ready to be promoted to A-Class. Great work on this article! —Compdude123 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review, and for the constructive comments! In the development section, "last 757" and "winglet" photos have been placed closer to the relevant text. In the design section, the year that the carbon brakes option became public, 1982, has been added. For the orders/deliveries chart, I wouldn't mind having the dates start at the first year and proceed chronologically, however all the other airliner articles use a backwards chronological order for some reason.
- For the specifications section, the chart has been removed--quality, readability, and other concerns were brought up for the same type of chart when Boeing 767 went up for review. Because that image had to be removed to pass FAC, I've removed it here as well. Thanks again for the review, and for your support. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always feel free to revert my copyediting. I made the following changes:
- "two-crew": two-seat [some readers will assume you mean that there are two crews]
- "to obtain a common type rating for both aircraft": to obtain a common type rating that allows them to fly both aircraft [most readers are unlikely to guess what this means without a little explanation]
- "The original 757-200 entered service in 1983 while the 757-200PF, a package freighter (PF) variant, and the 757-200M, a passenger-freighter combi model, debuted in the late 1980s.": The usual style guides recommend against "while" when it could easily mean either "whereas" or "at the same time", and recommend against any word when you have to read for a while to find out which it means. I went with a semicolon.
- "October 28, 2004": October 28, 2004,. See WP:Checklist#second comma.
- "898 examples of the twinjet": "examples" is not a great word for this sense. "898 of the 757s" - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions, edits, and information; I have also swapped out the "two-crew" wording for "two-person flight crew." Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure. If would be great to see a long string of aviation articles at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions, edits, and information; I have also swapped out the "two-crew" wording for "two-person flight crew." Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "with its role eventually taken by the versions of the 737.": 737s fulfilled its envisioned role. (Don't worry too much about this one; Garner's vaguely frowns on "with" + noun + participle, calling it an "absolute construction", and the fixes vary. When it's a present participle, User:Tony1 calls this "noun plus -ing".)
- "two-crew": I went with "two-crewmember" on this one ... does that work?
- "Due to their design similarities, pilots rated on the 757 could be qualified to fly the 767 and vice versa, after completing a short conversion course.": After completing a short conversion course, pilots rated on the 757 could be qualified to fly the 767 and vice versa, owing to their design similarities.
- "In opting": Opting
- "... British Airways and Rolls-Royce lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings, but this did not occur.": British Airways and Rolls-Royce unsuccessfully lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings.
- "Ultimately, approximately half": Ultimately, about half (Garner's doesn't care for "approximately", especially near other big words.)
- "utilized": used (they have slightly different meanings, per most style guides) - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, thanks for the suggestions and edits! I'll have to keep an eye out for Garner's; those recommendations are quite useful. Also, "two-crewmember" has the benefit of being more succinct than "two-person flight crew", so I added it to the lead as well. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Asia, after an initial purchase by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) in 1987, Chinese orders grew to 59 aircraft, making it the region's largest 757 market.": After an initial purchase ... making it Asia's largest 757 market."
- "This followed several incidents of small private aircraft experiencing loss of control when flying closely behind the twinjet, of which two resulted in fatal crashes.": This followed several incidents, including two fatal crashes, in which small private aircraft experienced loss of control when flying close behind the twinjet.
- "a 23.4 feet (7.13 m) stretch": a 23.4-foot (7.13 m) stretch
- "with 27 months targeted between launch and certification": 27 months from launch to certification - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Since the end of production, most 757s have remained in service, with the majority of these aircraft operating in the U.S.": ... in service, most in the U.S.
- "the only narrow-body aircraft to be used by all four U.S. legacy carriers, with Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways all operating large fleets.": Another "with" + noun + participle. I went with: "the only narrow-body aircraft to be used by the large fleets of all four U.S. legacy carriers: Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways." - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions from Dank
- "150-seat narrow-bodies such as the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 encroached on the lower end of the 757's seating capacity.": I'm not sure what "encroached" means here; were those models used on some routes?
- "allowed airlines to use the aircraft on a variety of nonstop routings": "on longer routes", maybe?
- "along with charter airlines": I'd prefer you specify "some", "many", "most", or something.
- "airlines began using the 757 on transatlantic routes between North America and Europe": Isn't that implied, more or less, by the previous sentence? Could you trim some of this? - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to: "[MD-80s] were cheaper to acquire and carried nearly as many passengers as some airlines' 757s."
- Changed to: "on longer nonstop routes."
- Changed to: "Many charter airlines, including..."
- Trimmed to: "airlines expanded international 757 services." Thanks for the questions and edits, this is great! SynergyStar (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. "In the early 2010s, the 757 has remained": "has remained" requires "since" rather than "in". Also: do you mean since 2010 or since 2011? - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It simply meant "up to now" or "currently"; that sentence has changed quite a bit over the months...now it's "In the 2010s, the 757 is..." Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki is running slow, so I'll finish up with comments here:
- "re-engined": I don't know what this means.
- Please go through and add "adj=on" to the convert template where it's needed.
- Search for "situation" and see if you can reword the sentence without it.
- "the flight deck is upgraded with the addition of a Honeywell ...": Not technically redundant, since "upgraded" alone would imply the new unit replaced something, and maybe it didn't ... but it sounds redundant. See if you can reword.
- "offers up to a six abreast layout": reword as, for instance, "seats up to six per row"
- "garment bag length overhead bins": garment-bag-length overhead bins
- "rear economy class galley": rear economy-class galley
- "in the 2000s": ambiguous (it could mean 2000-2009, or this century).
- Otherwise, so far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Boeing 757#Variants. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to: "a redesigned 737 family with new engines"
- Convert: will keep a lookout for further adj-on items
- Changed to: "conditions"
- Reworded to: "the updated flight deck features a Honeywell..."
- Reworded to: "seat arrangements of up to six per row "
- Hyphenated: "garment-bag-length" and "economy-class galley"
- Specified date: "In 2001, American Airlines...[and Delta Air Lines] in 2010." Thanks again! SynergyStar (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected Delta Air Lines: they installed the bin extensions in 2000, not 2010. ANDROS1337TALK 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for correcting the date! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This article is fully referenced and of high quality with no biased/POV content. I feel it meets the A-class criteria. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe the article had exceeded all GA requirements, and is very close to a FA status. Prior to that, I'd like to see this article receive A-class status, which it deservedly does. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 00:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This article is at or near FA quality. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have found the quality of this article to be equal with the other Boeing FA class articles. It deserves to be counted as the same, and the efforts to refine this article show. -Kyteto (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-class review, in light of the article's improvements following successful GA assessment and two peer reviews. Thanks in advance for your comments. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All pics have alt text. (no action required)
- All external links working. (no action required)
- No dabs. (no action required)
- Locations of some publishers missing. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for these points! The publisher locations have been added. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you improve the captions under "Variants"? "American Airlines 767-200ER", "United Airlines 767-300ER" are a bit dull; I suggest adding how many aircraft the particular airline has ordered or is operating, or the location of the pics.
- Retrieval dates missing from some websites.
- I suggest asking Nikkimaria for her spot checks and source reviews. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Captions have been expanded (they were kept short there to avoid impinging on edit tags, but oh well). I had checked each web cite earlier, all had retrieval dates; one unformatted link had since been added, which is now removed as unnecessary. Regarding spot checks and source reviews, thanks for the suggestion; I am familiar with Nikkimaria's work and expect to see that scrutiny during a future FAC review. SynergyStar (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support comprehensive, good prose given the recent copy edit, and follows MOS. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think the article is good to go for A-class now. ANDROS1337TALK 05:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks in good shape, and very comprehensive. Comments;
- "Both engines were capable of 48,000 lbf (210 kN) of thrust, a measure of jet engine output." As thrust is wikilinked, I don't think the additional explanation of what it means is necessary; it sounds awkward.
- "The 767's fuselage was set midway between the 707 and the 747 at 15 feet 6 inches (4.72 m) wide." Consider rearranging this so that the reader knows earlier in the sentence that it's specifically the fuselage width that's being discussed.
- "seven abreast seating could be fitted with parallel aisles for the entire length" - this is a bit confusing; do any airliners have multiple aisles that are not parallel? I assume what it means is that the fuselage width was enough for twin aisles and seven seats for the entire length.
- "but only Ansett Australia ordered 767s configured as such, due to union demands" - this should be tweaked a bit; in its current wording it's possible to misinterpret it as meaning that union demands were the reason that the other airlines didn't order this configuration.
- "In late 2002, Boeing halted development work on the Sonic Cruiser. Airlines had expressed reservations about its emphasis on speed over cost reduction, leading to its demise." These two sentences could perhaps be combined in order to get rid of the awkwardly redundant trailing clause.
- "a smaller location at the Everett factory which occupied nearly half as much space" - better as "which occupied less than half as much space" or "which occupied just over half as much space", depending on which it is.
- "taking over functions previously performed by the flight engineer" perhaps better as "allowing the pilot and co-pilot to take over functions previously performed by the flight engineer".
- "Airborne Optical Adjunct" - should this mention who this aircraft was used by?
- The section Operators could do with some tweaks to avoid two consecutive sentences starting with "As of August 2011,".
--Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am through doing some rewording for these. I am leaving the "taking over functions" alone until I can check the references for that. Also, I think the wording in basically right as-is. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Demiurge1000 for the copy-editing suggestions and comments! Thanks also to Fnlayson who largely addressed them over the weekend. Some details and clarifications:
- With regards to thrust, the "it's wikilinked" defense is a good idea if it comes up in FA review (on Boeing 777, a reviewer's demand resulted in the definition being added).
- We sweated over the recommendation at WP:Checklist: "If many readers won't even be able to guess what the sentence means without clicking, give at least a clue to the meaning in the text in addition to the link." FWIW, I'd be willing to listen to counterarguments, but readers should have at least a rough idea what "thrust" means, so I'd say the link is sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to parallel aisles, the 767 cabin is somewhat unique in that the rear economy cabin has parallel aisles until the end; other aircraft (A330, B747, B777 etc.) have narrowing aisles at the end of the rear cabin due to the curvature of the fuselage. (for comparison, Seatguru.com). I've clarified that a bit using the existing references.
- With regards to the CRT displays and flight engineer, I reworded it slightly to "Cathode-ray tube (CRT) color displays and new electronics replaced the role of the flight engineer by enabling the pilot and co-pilot to monitor aircraft systems themselves." Naming the remaining two flight crew members provides more clarity; the reference states "....the screens could be used to check the status of aircraft systems, thereby playing the role of the flight engineer", which refers to both the flight crew and the electronics playing the monitoring role.
- With regards to thrust, the "it's wikilinked" defense is a good idea if it comes up in FA review (on Boeing 777, a reviewer's demand resulted in the definition being added).
- Thanks again for the suggestions! Any more comments on this article's application for A-class status are welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I should've realised tapering aisles were a possibility. (I recommend business class to avoid such horrors :P) It's much clearer with the changes. There's another instance under "Flight systems" of the screens themselves being described as taking over the third crew member's functions, so maybe that could be tweaked a bit as well, but all of the issues I raised look fine now, so happy to Support. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has my Support. It is sufficiently well developed, wording has been checked over as appropriate, and I am satisfied this meants the standards I would hold an A-class article to. I do not see any problems withstanding. Kyteto (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Characteristic features of the aircraft include two turbofan engines, a supercritical wing, and a conventional tail.": If "characteristic" means what I think it means here, then better would be "The aircraft has ...". Readers will usually assume that the features you list are the ones worth listing.
- "Sized between narrow-body jetliners and the wide-body 747": Thinner than the wide-body 747 [That is, the readers don't need to be told that a "wide-body" jet is wider than a "narrow-body" jet; what they need to know is that this wide-body jet isn't as wide as other wide-body jets.]
- "a capacity for 181 to 375 persons": "capacity for" means something else, per the usual style guides: "capacity for kindness", for instance. You want "capacity of", here. (Some people say "can carry" is better, but I disagree, I think this is fine.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "placed the 767 into": placed the 767 in. (This is just another of those geeky rules that some style guides, and publishing houses, hold on to ... not something I view the writer as responsible for, that's the copyeditor's job, ideally.)
- Otherwise, the lead looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions on the lead. The "characteristic features" are just "the aircraft features" now; the sizing issue moved (a "narrow wide-body" sounds oxymoronic; plus the body has the historical context--wide-bodies were larger initially); "in service" corrected. SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "between the narrow-body 707 and the wide-body 747, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.": I remember making a comment on this language before, maybe in another article, but I can't find it now. Anyway: I don't understand what it means to be "between" 4 things.
- "unenthusiastic towards the concept. Subsequently,": Heh, there are more problems than words here :) Long story short: "unenthusiastic, so ..."
- "While airlines remained ambiguous in their requirements ...": The requirements are ambiguous, not the airlines.
- On this first section, the sizing issue has been simplified: "The aircraft would provide twin-aisle seating, but in a smaller fuselage than the existing 747, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar wide-bodies." Other areas ("unenthusiastic, ambiguous") corrected. SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "As such, it would typically transport ...": The "future-in-past" tense is for things that did (later) happen, not for things that didn't. Example: "The aircraft had [feature], which would later be replaced by [another feature]. The aircraft also had [yet another feature]." If you use "would" in the sense of "intended to, were supposed to", some people are going to think that you're saying that the thing actually did later happen, in the future (relative to the story). So: "As such, it was designed to transport ..." (unless I'm misunderstanding).
- While I'm on the subject, here's the kicker: engineers often get in the habit of using the wrong verb tenses ... so it's not good enough to just follow their wording, you have to correct it as you go.
- "three variants were planned—a 767-100 ...": Not a big deal, and there's a lot of disagreement on this, but both WP:MOS and the usual style guides take the view that em-dashes are usually more useful in pairs than alone. A colon would be perfect here.
- "estimated at US$3.5–4 billion": the long string of symbols makes this harder to read than it should be. Since we've got a clear US context here, let's drop the "US": "estimated at $3.5 to $4 billion". - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Both proposals were positioned to capitalize on the airline industry upturn which emerged in the late 1970s.": I'm not sure what this means; were they timed to capitalize on that? If so, how did they manage to time it, that is, how did they predict the upturn?
- Two suggestions here seem to be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen: "three variants were planned..." was followed by a colon originally, but changed during copy-editing just a few days ago; also the "typically transport..." sentence was from a reviewer needing clarification (similar to thrust). Both have now been adjusted.
- American style guides are in agreement on this, but BritEng style guides are all over the place, so it's confusing for Brits. Generally, I aim to make everyone happy, but with colon and semicolon usage, that's not possible. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "$3.5 to $4 billion" phrase is now included, it is easier to read; hopefully there will be little objection to the absence of the US$, which I've encountered in past reviews.
- The "proposals capitalizing" sentence has been rephrased, after a reference check, to "Work on both proposals accelerated as a result of the airline industry upturn in the late 1970s." SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two suggestions here seem to be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen: "three variants were planned..." was followed by a colon originally, but changed during copy-editing just a few days ago; also the "typically transport..." sentence was from a reviewer needing clarification (similar to thrust). Both have now been adjusted.
- "20–30 percent": 20 to 30 percent
- "at approximately one-third distance from the fuselage, similar to ...": at approximately one-third the length of the wing from the fuselage, similarly to
- "The wings were designed ... Large relative to fuselage size, the wings ...": The larger wings were designed ... The wings
- "and room for possible stretched variants": I don't follow.
- "The baseline 767-200": I can think of several options for what "baseline" might mean here, but I'm not sure I'm right.
- "towards": Right in BritEng, and not wrong in AmEng, but there's more support for "toward" in AmEng (for instance, at Chicago 5.220).
- Demiurge was on the money objecting to "replacing the role of the flight engineer"; see WP:Checklist#dangling. That is ... what word or phrase does "replacing" modify?
- "a U.S. Presidential task force": a presidential task force
- Okay, I got down to Production and testing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On this second section, changes have been implemented for percent, larger wings, toward, and task force. The engine placement has been revised (the prior sentence mentioned "engines under the wings...at approximately one-third"; the new sentence lacks the underwing part, in contrast with the earlier "overwing engines" proposal, but readers can figure it out). "Baseline 767-200" has been switched to "initial 767-200". For "room for stretched variants", after reference check, clarified as "expansion room for future stretched variants." Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work! If it's okay, I'll make edits directly from this point on to save you some work; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On this second section, changes have been implemented for percent, larger wings, toward, and task force. The engine placement has been revised (the prior sentence mentioned "engines under the wings...at approximately one-third"; the new sentence lacks the underwing part, in contrast with the earlier "overwing engines" proposal, but readers can figure it out). "Baseline 767-200" has been switched to "initial 767-200". For "room for stretched variants", after reference check, clarified as "expansion room for future stretched variants." Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know if this is wrong: "The first delivery occurred on August 19, 1982, to United Airlines." Some readers won't know what a "launch customer" is. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording is OK. But that's a poor reason to just remove something instead of explaining it somewhere. Besides "launch customer" at least one place elsewhere in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do a gsearch on "launch customer"; how many contexts outside of aviation is it used in? And what was it I didn't explain? - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording is OK. But that's a poor reason to just remove something instead of explaining it somewhere. Besides "launch customer" at least one place elsewhere in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is very critical, but this IS an aviation article.
Just looks like a 'when in doubt take it out' thing.-Fnlayson (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I took a guess based on a gsearch that "launch customer" means more or less "first customer"; if so, I think more readers will understand "first customer". - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is very critical, but this IS an aviation article.
- Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Design. These are my edits. I haven't seen the "–300ER" notation before (outside aviation articles on Wikipedia), but I don't have a problem with it for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Dank for your copy-edits! And thanks to all the above contributors for the comments and suggestions. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Dank for your copy-edits! And thanks to all the above contributors for the comments and suggestions. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would anyone would mind if I ask at the Milhist coordinators' talk page for a coordinator with experience in aviation articles to come close this? I understand that the usual people you turn to haven't responded. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like an excellent idea; I've noticed quite a few of the A-class and FA-class articles on WP:AVIATION are also part of WPLMILHIST, and have been evaluated/handled by coordinators there. SynergyStar (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more complicated that I thought; please see the discussion at WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#ACRs for closure. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the update. At present, low participation seems to be the difficulty, as the associated discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Boeing_767_A-Class_review has had few replies (I recall similar problems with past FA reviews at the project needing input). In reference to the discussion, it might be worth pointing out that the 767 has had multiple military derivatives, and its continued production is likely to be focused on tanker applications, which could qualify it for WP:MILIHIST involvement. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Closed per MILHIST/Aviation cross-listing agreement, this is unnecessary as the article was promoted at MILHIST -MBK004 04:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has just completed a Milhist A-class review and I believe that it complies with the requirements for WP:Aviation as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per MilHist ACR review/promotion - Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): --Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
This article has passed GAR and I believe that it meets all the requirements for A-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsThis is a great article, but I think that it needs a little bit more work:- This text "The survivors were flown, in ever dwindling numbers, until the beginning of 1944 when none were left in front-line service. However, the restart of the production line in 1943 re-introduced the aircraft to combat operations in the latter half of 1944." is a bit unclear, and could be simplified
- How is it now? Honestly I'm not sure what the problem was, but I've rewritten most of the second sentence, which is where I think the problem lay.
- Did the heavy diesel engines change the range of this aircraft?
- Yes, explained in the variants section.
- The variants section needs a cite for each variant
- Done
- Is it possible to expand the operational history section? (and I acknowledge in advance that it may not)
- Only slightly. I added a sortie count and losses for one regiment through the opening stages and have similar information on the other that I can add if y'all think it would help.
- Is it possible to provide a comprehensive list of the units which operated this aircraft in the operators section? Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This text "The survivors were flown, in ever dwindling numbers, until the beginning of 1944 when none were left in front-line service. However, the restart of the production line in 1943 re-introduced the aircraft to combat operations in the latter half of 1944." is a bit unclear, and could be simplified
- Support Great work. The only further suggestion I have for taking this to FA status is that the list of units could use a cite, but that's an easy fix. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No problems reported with external links. One dab link needs to be located and fixed, if at all possible. One image is in need of alt text.
- Fixed the dab. Deleted the three view as its license is suspect.
- Please aim to have at least two paragraphs in the lead.
- Done
- In the fifth paragraph of the development section the last line reads in part "...it was canceled when the factory was evacuated in October." Are we talking about the larger evacuation of factories and other supply depots from the western USSR region to prevent them from falling into German hands? If so I think that warrants a note since this was a major gamble for Stalin and was at this point in the war a move that by all means seemed to be proof that the USSR would fall to the NDSAP forces. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I've expanded the reference a little, to explain that it was due to the German advance; is that you wanted to see?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I am driving at is summed up at Operation Barbarossa, specifically the part in bold here:
- No problems reported with external links. One dab link needs to be located and fixed, if at all possible. One image is in need of alt text.
"The German High Command grossly underestimated the control the central Soviet government exercised. The German High Command wrongly thought the Soviet government was ineffective. The Germans based their hopes of quick victory on the belief the Soviet communist system was like a rotten structure which would collapse from a hard kick.[96] In fact, the Soviet system proved resilient and surprisingly adaptable. In the face of early crushing defeats, the Soviets managed to dismantle entire industries threatened by the German advance. These critical factories, along with their skilled workers, were transported by rail to secure locations beyond the Germans' reach. Despite the loss of raw materials and the chaos of an invasion, the Soviets managed to build new armaments factories in sufficient numbers to allow mass production of needed war machinery. The Soviet government was never in danger of collapse and remained at all times in tight control of the Soviet war effort."
- As this relates to my last comment, the question is whether the cancellation of the plane in October had to do with this overall decision to evacuate the soviet factories and their workers from the war zone to safer positions. That fact is not clearly explained in the article, and its a point I would like to have clarified. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I explicitly said why the aircraft was cancelled, as stated in my sources. You're asking if it was related to the evacuation and _I_ think that it was, but none of my sources explicitly say that it was, so I can't say so lest I stray into OR. Now the AM-37 engine was cancelled explicitly because of the evacuation as stated in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As this relates to my last comment, the question is whether the cancellation of the plane in October had to do with this overall decision to evacuate the soviet factories and their workers from the war zone to safer positions. That fact is not clearly explained in the article, and its a point I would like to have clarified. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport.
- Why did you link 1940s in the lead?
- Fixed
- "With a gross overload weight of 11,000 kg (24,251 lb), fully 6,200 kg (13,669 lb) of that was payload." Fragment.
- How does it read now?
- "Other problems were an excessive take-off run, defects with its engines and its defensive armament was inadequate." Awkward.
- How does it read now?
- "This engine, like all diesels, offered a greatly reduced fuel consumption compared to a standard gasoline-powered engine, but a great penalty in weight." At a great penalty, perhaps?
- Indeed.
- "The Yer-2 was not in squadron service when the Germans invaded on 22 June 1941," Perhaps just "when Germany"?
- Done
- In discussing the raid on Berlin, you say three took off and two bombed Berlin, of which one was later shot down. What happened to the third one?
- Added
- Please submit it for a copy-edit. I've pointed out the most glaring errors in the prose, but there are other places that could do with some tightening and touching up.
- I'd much prefer to address these things myself so pointing them out as you did above is much more helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be at all possible to add another picture? The Development and, to a lesser extent, the Operational history sections make large blocks of boring text.
- Done.
- Why did you link 1940s in the lead?
- Please take care of these before it's ready for A-class. – Joe N 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rereading it, I only see one problem: in "A Yer-2 was modified with experimental Mikulin AM-37 engines, a reinforced undercarriage, armored seats for the navigator and gunner, and the original ShKAS machine guns were exchanged for 12.7-mm UBT machine guns," you forget parallel structure in the last phrase. All of your fixes look good. – Joe N 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten this clause and think that I've corrected the problem. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TomStar81 (Talk) 12:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted - MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-class, as it has recently undergone a massive revamp. A detailed development and design section has been added, and the article recently underwent a detailed peer review. The CFM56 is one of the most widely used jet engines in the world, and it would be a good turbine representative for aero-engines. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Compressor links to a disambiguation page.
The alt text for the images is too detailed I believe, the way I understand it is that you are describing the image over the telephone and you and the person at the other end knows nothing at all about the subject(s), the KC-135 image would be something like 'a grey colored, four-engined jet aircraft is flying from right to left'. The Nixon image would be something like 'A group of suited men and military officers stand in front of three flags, two men are waving'. It's difficult but it can be done.
- I have gone back through the alt text, removing proper names and unneeded details. I think these comply with WP:ALT now, but another opinion is always useful! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost, the infobox image still has CFM56 in it, the 737 inlet has Boeing 737 in it and other images have technical terms like 'compressor, booster, turbine and fan case etc. (remember this is my wife describing the images to her sister on the telephone!).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch on the lead image and the nacelle image! I've fixed those now. I'm not exactly sure what to do museum image. In my mind, "blade" is the descriptive, over-the-phone word, and "compressor" or "turbine" is just the modifier. I could say "there are three sets of blades from left to right", but I feel like specifying which blades they are adds to the description. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All external links including the references are currently live, I have not checked their reliability as sources.
The auto peer reviewer tool [1] indicates that non-breaking spaces are needed, that units need to be written out in full (only at the first instance usually) and that there is scope to remove extra words like all, any, many, some and several.
- I have tweaked the text to remove some of those useless words, and I have slightly re-organized the headers and limited the TOC to get it a bit shorter. I have started writing out units at the first case, but if you spot one I haven't gotten, feel free to jump in a clean it up ;). -SidewinderX (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SmackBot got some of the non-breaking spaces, but yea, there are still some more than need to be fixed. I'm kinda hoping that someone suggests a magical tool to automatically do that... *looks around* -SidewinderX (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tool is also indicating that the lead is too short, it's often wrong but I think there is room for another paragraph, the new 'Engine failure' section is not mentioned. It might be useful to add a timeframe, we have first run (1974) in the infobox but the intro to service date and any other milestones are usually included in the lead (there are some dates in the main text that could be used).
- I have tweaked the lead a little bit. I can't think of an easy to to incorporate the engine failure section into the lead... any suggestions? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A suggested new third paragraph:
- Although the CFM56 is a reliable engine several serious fan blade failures were experienced during its early service, one failure was noted as a cause of the Kegworth air disaster, which were serious enough to ground the fleet or required the engine to be redesigned. Problems caused by flight through rain and hail were also remedied by modifications. By September 2009, the CFM56 had flown over 450 million cumulative hours (the equivalent of more than 51,000 years).
- Just a suggestion BTW, don't feel that you have to add this verbatim or even add it at all. I believe that you do not have to use cites in the lead as long as the information is clearly cited elsewhere in the article. It gets complicated if 'as of' is used (see WP:ASOF), I use 'by' instead! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've modified your suggestion and added it to the lead. How does that read? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there! Are the 'continuing improvements' related to safety/reliability as that is the 'thrust' of that paragraph? It's implying that the engine still has problems. I'm not seeing continuing improvements mentioned in the article (although it might be there!).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, good point. I got lost in the forest for all trees for a minute there. You're right; that paragraph is about the engine failures and improvements, nothing else. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images - There is a lot of discussion at the Featured Article candidates talk page about the poor quality of images in nominated articles, apparent lack of thought on their placement and copyright problems. They particularly note that images are being overlooked at project reviews. I would prefer if another editor reviewed the images so that I don't go on!!
- Anyone willing to critique the images is more than welcome to! I know some of them (like the museum cut-away) aren't great photos, but, in that case, I feel it is useful in the article. One image I would like to use is a cut-away diagram (like the Flight International ones) and/or a flow diagram. However, none of these are free and it seems like defending a fair-use rational might be more trouble than it's worth. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope that helps, I won't hog this as I've already said enough at the previous peer review! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I feel this article is A-class material. A-class criteria: "It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources..." -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - generally this is very good, engagingly written and well structured, cited and illustrated. I've made a few minor copyedits for style but have a few more comments:
- Thanks for your comments, particularly for the "engagingly written" one. As I was researching the article I was drawn into the rather intriguing story of the engine, and I really wanted the reader to get that same engagement that I felt. I've read many a "good" article here on wikipedia that are just plain dull, and I don't want articles that I work on to feel like that if I can. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to repeat the citations for inital run and number built in both the intro and the infobox; I prefer a 'clean' infobox myself so suggest you drop them from there and leave them in the intro.
- That makes sense. I'm guessing I put the cits in the info box first, and then worked them into the lead later. I have fixed it. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you need the Work Split subheading - it's too small a subsection and should just be another paragraph under CFM International.
- That's a fine suggestion, done. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the KC-135R and DC-8 subsections. The former appears fragmented with a couple of single-sentence paras that could be rolled up into the previous para (the one that begins The USAF announced...). Also it's a good idea to always finish a paragraph with a citation at A-Class level. Both these subsections fail to do that everywhere.
- I integrated the short paragraphs into the main body, and slightly reworked the paragraphs to end with a citation. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be good for first para of Design to have at least one citation, even if it is introducing the following subsections.
- Ok, I've added a sentence and the citation. I will say that I feel a little silly adding a citation to an introductory paragraph, but I've seen enough FA reviews to know that some editors here have hard ons (if you will) for that sort of thing. Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All good, except could we have citations added for last sentence of First customers and last sentence of first para of KC-135 pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added a cite to the First Customers section, and I've moved the cite over to include the last sentence of the KC-135 paragraph. I understand the "rule-of-thumb" approach to putting cites at the end of paragraphs, but in this case the last sentence is just there as a transition to the next paragraph, and I really don't think it's a "best practice" to list the cites at the end of the paragraph for the sake of doing it. It makes more sense to me to place the citation and the end of the material that needs the cite. That said, I'm the wiki-noobie in the group here, so I'll do what the practice is. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree but the reader doesn't know that for sure so it's generally best to cover all bases. Anyway, I'm happy to support this now - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added a cite to the First Customers section, and I've moved the cite over to include the last sentence of the KC-135 paragraph. I understand the "rule-of-thumb" approach to putting cites at the end of paragraphs, but in this case the last sentence is just there as a transition to the next paragraph, and I really don't think it's a "best practice" to list the cites at the end of the paragraph for the sake of doing it. It makes more sense to me to place the citation and the end of the material that needs the cite. That said, I'm the wiki-noobie in the group here, so I'll do what the practice is. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
- I'd convert the 20,000 lbf to kN in the first para of the Development section even though it's not strictly a A-class requirement.
- Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate the link to specific fuel consumption.
- Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright on all images looks good.
- Ok, notice anything else I need to fix? -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Speedy close as Passed - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC) The article just passed A-class at Military history WikiProject. It may qualify here as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Close, 3 supports and a MILHIST pass. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC) This article traces the career of an officer who, if perhaps not quite as vital to the history of the Royal Australian Air Force itself as Air Marshal Sir Richard Williams, probably outshone him in terms of the impact he had on Australia's military and society in general, and was certainly at the top for achievements in rank and office being the RAAF's first (de facto) Chief of the Defence Force and its first Air Chief Marshal. It's just passed its MilHist ACR, so hopefully can get the nod for Aviation as well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: A very good article. A little clarifying in places will be helpful. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Close as Passed. -Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Having achieved B-class, with the help of Nimbus227, on 9 Jan., the article now contains more information, more detailed data on the construction and also an extra image or two. Would some experienced editors please have a look at it and assess what needs to be done to achieve A, GA or whatever? Many thanks --TraceyR (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much (i.e. nothing!) has happened here since Jan. '09. Having looked at it again, I still think that the article satisfies the GA criteria - but then, what do I know? I am certainly not impartial here. I'd welcome comments for improving this article or even (especially!) endorsements. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Needs a copyedit for some punctuation, but it was written well enough to keep my interest. -- Born2flie (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and the suggestion for improvement. Some improvements to punctuation and phrasing have been made; also the use of the pronouns "she" and "her" is now (I hope) consistent when referring to the Patrie. --TraceyR (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: How lovely it is to see this article again after all this time. There are three issues that need sorting Tracey, feel free to ask for help with them:
There are two links that lead to disambiguation pages[2], this is bad, try and find where they should end up.Three of your links have "died"[3], whilst another three seem to be having some sort of problem.None of the images have alt text[4], this will need to be added.Ryan4314 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the detailed assistance - I had no idea that these tools existed. I have remedied the dab and alt text points; the references will take a bit longer, I fear. It's a shame that the film of the Patrie seems to be no longer available. Perhaps it is still out there; worth a look, anyway. Do you think that this article is A or even GA material? Thanks for your help.--TraceyR (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do the above things mentioned I think it's definitely an A-class. When/if you take to FAC it will need copyediting, the people there will advise you on that. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the deadlinks and adjusted the text accordingly - well, commented the links out, in the hope that at least the earlyaviator site comes on-stream again soon. The loss of the newspaper archive is perhaps part of a trend away from free access, something that will make our time on WP harder as more and more links go dead. So I think it is ready for the next step. As to FA status, that would be really satisfying. --TraceyR (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Tracey, you don't have to remove dead/problematic links, they can always be fixed. Don't let your article suffer for the sake of these gradings. Would you like me to fix those dead links for you. Also a couple of your Alt texts need rewording, would you mind me doing that for you? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, I tried fixing those links, I couldn't find any replacements for them. What I recommend is that you perhaps revert your removal of the links and let the matter be brought up at FAC. The people there understand this sort of thing a lot better than me and might be able to help. I've changed my !vote to support, but I hope you get round to fixing those alt descriptions per WP:ALT, see you at FAC Tracey, well done! Ryan4314 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all the help and guidance, which are much appreciated. I see that the alt text has to more descriptive and less factual. That'll be for tomorrow. I need to find out a lot more about requirements before I start assessing articles! Perhaps the missing links will be back before I have finished! --TraceyR (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't stay away! I've gone to town on some of the alt texts. Now that there are two support votes and none against, can the assessment be changed? Who is allowed to do this? Cheers --TraceyR (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right well per here it says an article needs 3 supports to 0 opposes. A co-ordinator from WP:Aviation will close this review when the time is right, they are also the only one's with the authority to dub it "A-class". Might I recommend that you assign the article under WP:Milihist (this ship was originally part of the army right?), their project has more people and faster response time to reviews. I'll see if I can find another reviewer for you. P.S. Well done on the the Alt texts, but per here you dont need to describe images as B/W. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I saw that yesterday about three supports being recommended. I've suggested to the milhist people that they might take a look - the more the merrier. Thanks. I've removed the b/w stuff too from the alt texts. There's more to this than meets the eye! --TraceyR (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right well per here it says an article needs 3 supports to 0 opposes. A co-ordinator from WP:Aviation will close this review when the time is right, they are also the only one's with the authority to dub it "A-class". Might I recommend that you assign the article under WP:Milihist (this ship was originally part of the army right?), their project has more people and faster response time to reviews. I'll see if I can find another reviewer for you. P.S. Well done on the the Alt texts, but per here you dont need to describe images as B/W. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asked to have another look at this article, very sorry but I have been busy, I thought that I should write something here to indicate that I have not forgotten! I am steering an article through the FAC process at the moment (thanks for support there BTW), have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1 for points that have been raised, bearing in mind that some reviewers there might have a minority viewpoint on certain things. Referencing style for web cites was noted (put the domain name in plain text before 'Retrieved'). Alt text I had missed but learnt a lot in the process of adding it, I see that there is alt text here, it might need adjusting, a good way of adding it is to imagine that you are describing the photo to someone over the telephone, you know nothing about the subject, nor do they. You can't use the name 'Patrie' in other words. Back to the references you will see the question 'what makes such and such website' a reliable source? I had to admit that when I looked I had to remove most of them (noting that I did not add them). The moral of this to me is if you want to keep the good stuff don't put an article up for promotion!! It's a wicky-wacky world! Hope to revisit soon to add a proper vote in the positive. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies Nimbus, I was not aware you were previously involved in editing this article, Tracey may need a different independent !vote. I also wholeheartedly agree with your last point, the FAC level nitpicking often affects content, I'd personally recommend just capping any articles off a GA. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem, I have had my 'head on fire' recently with getting the Merlin up to FA (it's over now), I don't think that it would be problem to vote even though I did originally assess the article. I assessed it as start class and got a 'roasting' for not assessing it higher, it was a misunderstanding and quite funny when I look back at it now! Hope some more folk turn up here soon, cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! Mea culpa! On reassessing the situation I think it was more of a 'toasting' than a 'roasting' - I was really quite polite and it was a genuine query, after all. Sorry about that though! It won't happen again. Honest. --TraceyR (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries at all, the Internet is a strange place where words or actions can easily be misunderstood, there are times that I have reverted something sure in the knowledge that I was right and then the 'penny has dropped'. I own an absolutely fantastic article at Lockheed NF-104A, it remains a lowly start class, blub!! This actually doesn't bother me at all, some one will find it one day. Anyway, to stay on topic I noticed the no-wikied film link in external links, you should still have the 'External links' header visible as Commons is treated as an external link, just a minor thought. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just ran the article through this [5] tool, it's not always right but you might like to note what it came up with. I would post the results here but it's not allowed (I got told off for doing it recently!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wiki world just gets bigger all the time - thanks for the auto-reviewer link. I've checked through for the units/nbsp issues and found a few, but there are some questions, e.g. when a quotation just mentions e.g. 4,000 feet, should this be expanded to include the metric equivalent, even though it was not part of the quote? Also, since this is about a French aircraft, the metric units should be cited first - does this apply even when the source (UK or USA) only mentions feet/lbs? Perhaps I'd better check the MOS on those points. By the way, the auto-review no longer flags the intro since I split the first para into two!!! --TraceyR (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) No, if a number is in a quote then it stays unconverted, don't think there is a rule about that but that's how it works, original spelling mistakes get left as well although most people quietly straighten them out. I've seen editors correcting grammar in quotes, a no,no. Units, can be a bit of a minefield, consistency is the main aim throughout an article, so in the case of the Patrie it should be metric first even if the source gives it the other way around. There is guidance at WP:MOSNUM but don't look at this for too long!! If you have only Imperial units then conversion is allowed (and encouraged). Glad the tool was useful, only found it myself recently, in time it will be refined and we humans will be taken out of the loop! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentThis is a fine article, detailed and well laid out. I took the liberty of making a minor ce or two, but a few other points:- She was the second Lebaudy airship, and surpassed her predecessor in both size and method of construction - I didn't know you could surpass something in method of construction, can this be clarified or reworded?
- I generally review articles at the MilHist project so forgive me if ACR standards are a bit different here—though if considering this for FAC it needs to be addressed anyway— but there are a number of paragraphs without any citation; this should be rectified.
- Purely cosmetic, but is there a particular reason we need a blank line between Endurance and Ballonet Volume under Specifications? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and comments, Ian. I've removed the extra break, which was there simply to highlight the fact that "Ballonet volume" is not part of the specs template - unnecessarily, of course. The comment about "surpassed ... in construction methods" is quoted from the source (Vivian); I think his point was that the earlier airship (it went though several metamorphoses during its life, so some sources refer to it as two or three different airships) had a triple-layer gasbag, whereas the Patrie and its successor, the République, had four layers. Unfortunately he doesn't elaborate. What do you think would be better: To enclose the sentence in quotation marks, so that it is seen to be the source's opinion, or elaborate about e.g. the construction improvements implemented in the Patrie vis-à-vis the Lebaudy I? I favour the latter, although it means more work!
- The quote might work; on the other hand I'd also be happy with something like She was the second Lebaudy airship, surpassing her predecessor in size and improving upon her method of construction - "improving" construction just sounds better to me than "surpassing". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source which lists several improvements over the Lebaudy I, the main one of which I have added under Envelope (the Patrie's had four layers compared with the other's three). The others improvements were (1) the increased volume (2) a more powerful motor (3) improved empennage (4) additional ailerons, finishing with a helpful "etc..."! Since none of these would be covered by Vivian's "method of construction" I'm considering ditching the unspecific Vivian quote and listing the other differences. The trouble there is that the source (a private website) is not as reliable as Vivian (a book)! However all of the items (1) to (4) are available from other sources or obvious from photos (would that be OR?) ... --TraceyR (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Tracey, I'm speaking here as someone steeped in MilHist reviewing standards so I beg the court's indulgence.... ;-) Although I haven't looked at the private website, prima facie it'd be safer at A-Class level to have a little less detail that's from a clearly reliable source than more which is from a private site. As for possible OR in deducing things from photos, even seemingly obvious things, there's a lively discussion going on at the MilHist talk page about that very subject when it comes to listing soldiers' campaign medals which aren't cited in writing somewhere (I must admit to taking a fairly firm line against that). Personally I have no prob with the level of detail in this article as it is so I would stick to what you've gleaned from the book. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source which lists several improvements over the Lebaudy I, the main one of which I have added under Envelope (the Patrie's had four layers compared with the other's three). The others improvements were (1) the increased volume (2) a more powerful motor (3) improved empennage (4) additional ailerons, finishing with a helpful "etc..."! Since none of these would be covered by Vivian's "method of construction" I'm considering ditching the unspecific Vivian quote and listing the other differences. The trouble there is that the source (a private website) is not as reliable as Vivian (a book)! However all of the items (1) to (4) are available from other sources or obvious from photos (would that be OR?) ... --TraceyR (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at the paragraphs without citations; I had not realised that there were so many. It will take some time, but the article will be the better for more citations. Thanks again. --TraceyR (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very welcome, Tracey. Don't reckon I've seen any of your work before but if this is any indication I look forward to more...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm pretty well ready to support. The first and third of my points above have been fully actioned, just have a couple of niggling things re. the citations. I bring these up mainly because I notice there's been talk of taking this to MilHist ACR, where it's quite stringent, and you may as well be ready...! I see every paragraph now in the main body has at least one citation, as I requested, however the best thing is to ensure that every paragraph finishes with a citation. For instance, the first two paras in Steering and Propulsion don't do this, and certainly the last clause of all ("lost without a trace") should finish with one; this may mean just moving the citation that's currently sitting earlier in the same sentence. On the other hand, if everything in a paragraph comes from the same source, one citation at the end is sufficient, e.g. the third para in Envelope has two citations to the same source and no others, it'd be fine in this circumstance to just have the one citation to that source appearing at the end of the last sentence, and drop the one in the middle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I'll look at these points tomorrow. There's also the "Aftermath" section which is still needed, so it may be a day or so before I can get around to that (life outside WP intervenes!). --TraceyR (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking really good, Tracey. There's just half a para in Steering and Propulsion devoid of citation now - can that be rectified? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Tracey, I'm cool with this now - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking really good, Tracey. There's just half a para in Steering and Propulsion devoid of citation now - can that be rectified? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I'll look at these points tomorrow. There's also the "Aftermath" section which is still needed, so it may be a day or so before I can get around to that (life outside WP intervenes!). --TraceyR (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm pretty well ready to support. The first and third of my points above have been fully actioned, just have a couple of niggling things re. the citations. I bring these up mainly because I notice there's been talk of taking this to MilHist ACR, where it's quite stringent, and you may as well be ready...! I see every paragraph now in the main body has at least one citation, as I requested, however the best thing is to ensure that every paragraph finishes with a citation. For instance, the first two paras in Steering and Propulsion don't do this, and certainly the last clause of all ("lost without a trace") should finish with one; this may mean just moving the citation that's currently sitting earlier in the same sentence. On the other hand, if everything in a paragraph comes from the same source, one citation at the end is sufficient, e.g. the third para in Envelope has two citations to the same source and no others, it'd be fine in this circumstance to just have the one citation to that source appearing at the end of the last sentence, and drop the one in the middle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good news. The missing www.earlyaviator.com site has been replaced by Early Aeroplanes and Airships; Jean-Pierre Lauwers' collection of images, some of which are referenced in the article, are here. Alice Guy's amazing 1906 film of the Patrie is still not accessible online. --TraceyR (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope that I have addressed all the points raised so far (and a couple more!). I'd appreciate any suggestions for further improvement or (even better!) the stamp of approval for the next level. Thanks for all the comments so far. --TraceyR (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the constructive suggestions and help evidenced above, this article now has three 'supports' and no 'opposes'. I am really grateful for all the comments which have highlighted so many issues which I had overlooked or been unaware of. Some useful tools have also been mentioned.
I note from the procedures that at this stage 'coordinators' can make an article A-class. Does this refer to project members uninvolved with creating and/or modifying the article? Who is permitted to make these changes? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan4314, Born2flie and Ian Rose have all been willing to offer their guidance on getting this article thus far: 3 supports for GA status. Since this is my first time around this loop, I'm not sure about who can take the final step of changing the assessment status of this article; my assumption is that I am probably the one person who can't do it! Would someone point me in the right direction for what I hope is the last yard? Many thanks.--TraceyR (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to go for Good Article then you need to formally nominate it at Wikipedia:Good article nominations where it will (in time) be reviewed by an independent editor, The Featured Article process is similar but multiple editors are invited to comment, support or oppose, a member of the FA team then has the last word on promotion or not. A class seems to be rated higher than GA and can be done within the project (I think!) which seems slightly strange to me. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I meant three supports for "A", not "GA"! Thanks for the response, though. Given the support, can I change the status to "A" myself? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Says at the bottom here that a 'coordinator' closes the review, not sure that I am one of those yet! Maybe ask Trevor, I would expect that this article will get promoted when a coordinator looks at the review, just takes time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I saw that and wondered what/who a coordinator is. Presumably a project coordinator? I'll just have to be patient - plenty of other calls on my time at the moment, but having got it so close I'd like to see it happen! Character-building, no doubt, having to wait! Thanks again. --TraceyR (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I lost a few inches of fingernail during the Merlin FAC! 'Patience is a virtue' so they say. To go slightly OT I would like to get involved in more assessment tasks as there is a growing backlog across the whole of WP but my priority at the moment is adding content and referencing many aero engine articles (approx 950 articles now). To do an assessment properly and fairly takes time and dedication which I don't feel I can give at the moment. Hang in there! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a message at the Aviation talk page to try and get some more eyes for the two review requests above (one of which is mine of course!) and a coord to close/promote this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I lost a few inches of fingernail during the Merlin FAC! 'Patience is a virtue' so they say. To go slightly OT I would like to get involved in more assessment tasks as there is a growing backlog across the whole of WP but my priority at the moment is adding content and referencing many aero engine articles (approx 950 articles now). To do an assessment properly and fairly takes time and dedication which I don't feel I can give at the moment. Hang in there! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article looks good. But there is little on why Patrie was built. The lead says it built for the French army, but this is not mentioned after that. Maybe repeat that further down in the article and expand on it or word it differently. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point. I have been thinking about an "epilogue" paragraph, so perahps a "background" or "intro" paragraph would sandwich it nicely. The success of the predecessor was the reason for the order. During the Patrie's short life it was also successful - I read somewhere that an order for five more was placed. The French got the Republique, the Russians the Ljebed and the Austrians also bought one, all more or less identical to the Patrie, so there's plenty of info that could be added. Watch this space! --TraceyR (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to all 'supporters' - perhaps the Patrie will achieve promotion before the first anniversary of its entry for assessment! I have changed the order and headings of two paragraphs in the "Design and deleopment" section to reflect the section introduction. I'm loath to change too much since the casting of the support votes! --TraceyR (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Speedy pass per MILHIST review - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fnlayson (talk · contribs) has done a lot of grunt work editing on AH-56 Cheyenne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to advance this article. It has already passed MILHIST's A-Class review. As a major contributor in cooperation with Fnlayson, I'd like to see WP:AVIATION advance the article as well. --Born2flie (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Speedy close as passed. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already A-class at Military history WikiProject. It may qualify here as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per nom. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/question: I can support this article, but have one issue first. What is the Wehrmachtbericht; a newspaper, magazine, or other? I don't see the significance of this really explained either. Try to address this, please. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick close and pass. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for A-Class on the Aviation project, as it's passed a similar review at MilHist. Am considering taking to FA at some stage, so any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: article is well done. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Close as Promoted - Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already A-class at Military history WikiProject, WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Biography. It should qualify here as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per nom - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets WP:A?. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Is an A-class rating limited to only one project? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Result was pass. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been a B-class article. Article was nominated for Feature Article review in Dec. 2008 and was improved greatly, but not enough in time allowed. It passed Good Article review in April 2009 without trouble. I believe it meets A-class criteria. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think so, too. -- Born2flie (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per nom. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as contributor. SynergyStar (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Result was promote. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already A-class at Military history WikiProject. It should qualify here as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- support as per nominator. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Some minor copyedit needed for punctuation, MOS text formatting, and sentence structure, but generally well constructed. -- Born2flie (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article has passed A-class in the WikiProject Military history. It should qualify here as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closed (as default pass). Is now an FA. The aviation project really needs to get more active. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article has passed the A-class criteria of the Military history WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans-Joachim Marseille). It should therefore qualify for the Aviation WikiProject as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good to me.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 11:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well written article. Marcusmax (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Well referenced and comprehensive article. It just became an A-class article on WP:MILHIST and I see no problem why it wouldn't become an A-class here also. --Eurocopter tigre 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — It's a well-written, well-referenced article, and it just passed a fairly comprehensive A-class review by the Military History group. No reason not to make it one here. JKBrooks85 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Interesting and well written article. Archtrain 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good article. -Fnlayson 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well done. (And as a side note may I say that I am glad to see parts of the Aviation project, such as this, finally being used) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
An important (if somewhat obscure) Soviet parasite aircraft project, used operationally in WW2 with far better success than Mistel. The information is a bit scarce but I've pulled all the sources I could find, including the memoirs of the mothership test pilot. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An interesting article that I believe meets the A-class criteria.Cla68 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (although the structure is a bit wonky). Carom 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably pretty obvious that I struggled with organizing the sections (in part dictated by spotty coverage, more on general configurations and less on their individual development and testing). Suggestions on restructuring are always appreciated. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Respectfully submit this article about a military aircraft accident for A class assessment review. Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Cla68 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is a very impressive and well-written article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to make it clearer why the accident was and remains significant. At the moment the article describes the lead-up to the accident and the accident in great detail but needs a stronger conclusion or an assessment section which explicitly draws the findings of the crash investigations together to make it clear how a culture of not taking safety seriously lead to the crash and hence why it is used in training. Explaining how it is used in training could also be a good addition (eg, is it a standard case-study USAF students study?). --Nick Dowling 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a very valid critique and I'll work on what you suggest right away. I'd ask that the nomination for "A-class" be put "on hold" until I fix that. I'll note it here when I believe that I've fully addressed the problem you've pointed-out. Cla68 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I hope I've now resolved the concern. I added a "Conclusions" section to summarize the findings of the investigation and show how the investigation tied the findings to the mishap. I added more details to the "Aftermath" section. The sources available for the article don't go into very great detail about how the mishap is used as a training aid, just that it is. I have some personal experience with this mishap as a training tool which may account for some of my interest in this event, but, of course, I'm not a valid secondary source for the article. Cla68 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to be a pain in the neck, and I really do think that this is a very high quality article on a very interesting topic, but I'd make a couple more suggestions for you to consider:
- The article could do with a final copy edit as some of the prose is a bit wordy and the grammar is a bit choppy in points (for instance, "All of the mishap aircrewmembers had experienced limited flying time in the months preceeding the mishap flight" - can you just say "all of the aircrew involved in the accident had only limited flying time in the months before the crash"?)
- It might be a good idea to rework the first couple of paras so that the significance of the crash is explained in the first couple of sentances. At face value, the loss of a single B-52 in an accident caused by pilot error isn't terribly interesting and the introduction isn't doing the article justice at present. --Nick Dowling 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I appreciate you taking the time to point out how the article could be improved. I'm a fan of run-on, Faulkner-esque sentences and that gets in the way of my writing sometimes. I just completed the copyedit, rewrote the intro, shortened some sentences, and removed some commas. Cla68 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to be a pain in the neck, and I really do think that this is a very high quality article on a very interesting topic, but I'd make a couple more suggestions for you to consider:
- Comment: Image:HollandB-52Yakima.jpg has an extremely unlikely rationale as being US-PD. Additionally the Youtube video linked has been removed from Youtube (likely as a copyvio). The introductory sentence/paragraph is a little weak "was an aircraft mishap" - better perhaps to describe it as "...was fatal aircrash that occured on June 24, 1994 killing the four aircrew of a B-52 Bomber during a training flight. ". Just a thought. Could maybe do with a diagram/map showing the flightpath. Otherwise looks good. Megapixie 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the image rationale is a problem. When I originally saw the footage that that image comes from on a news show, they stated that it was videotaped by US Government personnel, but I don't have any proof of that. I'll change the intro sentence as you suggest. I'll also delete the You Tube link. The CheckSix link also has the video. Cla68 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I like your article and especially the citation style, but I know too little on the subject to say whether it is fit for A class. Wandalstouring 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If, after reading the article you feel that you don't know enough about the subject, then I didn't do a good-enough job on it and I need to relook it. Cla68 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all the (relatively minor) points I raised have now been taken into account. --Nick Dowling 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. Megapixie 10:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Demoted -MBK004 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reappraisal review: I am nominating this article for reappraisal because it may no longer meet the A-class criteria Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewers: Please say whether Milhist should Keep or Demote this article. Reviewers should satisfy themselves that the article fails on at least one A-class criterion before recommending Demote and should explain their reasons when commenting.
- Agree; lacks references, contains MoS breaches, and is written rather choppily. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Remove due to referencing YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 20:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - would only need a few more references, but the primary reference lacks page numbers, and the guy who wrote it, Emt147 (talk · contribs), hasn't edited in roughly a year. I notified him of this review; if he responds and plans to work on the page number issue, please change my !vote to "hold". Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - I'm in the odd position where I have one book that mentions the Tupolev in a few sentences, giving its weight, speed and that it was the first all-metal bomber, and footnotes from that book that mention two other books in english that could be used as sources, but no way to access those sources. So, regretfully, I must vote to remove it as A-Class. Skinny87 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article still meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Republic F-84 Thunderjet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
A reassessment nomination. A 2006 a-class promotion that contains substantial uncited text; would likely be assessed as a start-class or c-class today. Original nominator has not edited since 2014. Hog Farm Talk 15:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, no better than start or maybe (very generously) C class (t · c) buidhe 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do to try and provide some cites for the uncited bits - and to provide where possible more useful cites rather than citing the whole book - help would be helpful of course - does anyone have a link to the original A-class review?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nigel Ish: - It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Republic F-84 Thunderjet/archive1. (I unfortunately do not have any relevant sources myself). Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified the MilHist and Aircraft projects. Hopefully this will bring more help.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments: Most of the sourcing issues on the main "Design and development" and "Operational history" sections should be fixable as long as enough effort is put in, although page numbers for "McLaren 19982 would be helpful - similarly, the "Variants" section should be fixable. The "Operators " section is a bit of a mess as it seems to be trying to cover all F-84s, not just the straight-wing Thunderjets that are the subject of the article - this should either be trimmed back to just cover Thunderjets or split off to cover all F-84s, leaving a summary and redirect design. The "Aircraft on display" section seems to be badly sourced (with both unsourced entries and entries with non-RS sourcing) - some thought is needed for this section.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now worked through the history, versions and operators sections - leaving the detailed lists of USAF operators and Netherlands aircraft as the fixed and swept wing variants need to be de-picked. I would like to ask what's the best way forward for the Surviving aircraft section if anyone can be bothered to comment.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Might it be best to scrap the section about display aircraft? It looks like it would be difficult to verify all of the entries, and near-impossible to get any kind of completeness. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sort of section is part of the normal format for aircraft articles - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and it is something that you do often see in monographs on aircraft types - note that the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - a featured article, splits the aircraft on display into a separate article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Might it be best to scrap the section about display aircraft? It looks like it would be difficult to verify all of the entries, and near-impossible to get any kind of completeness. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now worked through the history, versions and operators sections - leaving the detailed lists of USAF operators and Netherlands aircraft as the fixed and swept wing variants need to be de-picked. I would like to ask what's the best way forward for the Surviving aircraft section if anyone can be bothered to comment.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments: Most of the sourcing issues on the main "Design and development" and "Operational history" sections should be fixable as long as enough effort is put in, although page numbers for "McLaren 19982 would be helpful - similarly, the "Variants" section should be fixable. The "Operators " section is a bit of a mess as it seems to be trying to cover all F-84s, not just the straight-wing Thunderjets that are the subject of the article - this should either be trimmed back to just cover Thunderjets or split off to cover all F-84s, leaving a summary and redirect design. The "Aircraft on display" section seems to be badly sourced (with both unsourced entries and entries with non-RS sourcing) - some thought is needed for this section.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified the MilHist and Aircraft projects. Hopefully this will bring more help.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nigel Ish: - It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Republic F-84 Thunderjet/archive1. (I unfortunately do not have any relevant sources myself). Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do to try and provide some cites for the uncited bits - and to provide where possible more useful cites rather than citing the whole book - help would be helpful of course - does anyone have a link to the original A-class review?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely not A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This F-84 article lacks citations in many places after the Korean War section, especially variant and on display list entries. Good progress needs to be made on this soon or delist it, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Took a quick scroll through of text. Especially noticeable to me was the Surviving aircraft section. It not only lacks cites, it seems bent on listing every surviving F84 in existence. How many times do you have to see the same airplane with a different background?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, I'm not convinced we even need to have that section. Hog Farm Talk 20:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article actually has an Aircraft on display section which is more limiting than a Surviving aircraft section. Several entries are not sourced and entries have some repeated links which are being removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nigel Ish: - it looks like the on display aircraft and the variants are now where the main work is needed. Any thoughts on this? Hog Farm Talk 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've fixed the remaining cn tags in the variants section - I think it's probably better to move the On display section to a daughter article - otherwise people will just re-add it with similarly dubious sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now moved to a separate article - Republic F-84 Thunderjets on display.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nigel Ish: - I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll try to get to this next week. Looks like the uncited text has been resolved except for a few stray things in the operators section. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now moved to a separate article - Republic F-84 Thunderjets on display.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've fixed the remaining cn tags in the variants section - I think it's probably better to move the On display section to a daughter article - otherwise people will just re-add it with similarly dubious sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nigel Ish: - it looks like the on display aircraft and the variants are now where the main work is needed. Any thoughts on this? Hog Farm Talk 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Took a quick scroll through of text. Especially noticeable to me was the Surviving aircraft section. It not only lacks cites, it seems bent on listing every surviving F84 in existence. How many times do you have to see the same airplane with a different background?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think " "USAF Losses in Korea". www.alternatewars.com. Archived from the original on 29 February 2020. Retrieved 6 March 2020." is RS but beyond that this is looking pretty much ready to keep. I'll see when I can chip in a prose read-through but don't know what that'll be for sure. Hog Farm Talk 18:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be an extract/summary from [6] United States Air Force Statistical Digest Fiscal Year 1953 (and in particular Table 10 - pp. 26–29), which is a US Government document - while an old primary source, the statistical digest probably counts as a WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. So we can verify where the website (which doesn't seem particularly authoritative on its face) is getting that information. Would it be possible to cite directly to the old USAF document instead? Hog Farm Talk 20:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and corrected.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. So we can verify where the website (which doesn't seem particularly authoritative on its face) is getting that information. Would it be possible to cite directly to the old USAF document instead? Hog Farm Talk 20:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be an extract/summary from [6] United States Air Force Statistical Digest Fiscal Year 1953 (and in particular Table 10 - pp. 26–29), which is a US Government document - while an old primary source, the statistical digest probably counts as a WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by PM
[edit]Am just working through improving minor things initially. A few queries:
- are there links for the 127th Fighter Day Wing, 127th Fighter Escort Wing, 127th Strategic Fighter Wing? Are these lineage wing names for the 127th Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard? Perhaps Lineagegeek knows? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- were all the wings listed at the bottom of the Design and development section part of Strategic Air Command, or just a few of the latter ones? At present it isn't clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Willis there was a 127th Fighter Squadron which was part of the ANG - but based at Wichita (which would suggest the Kansas ANG rather than Michigan?), which was activated to join the 137th Fighter Bomber Wing of TAC. Willis doesn't mention the various 127th Wings. Of the ones list in the last paragraph of the Design and development section, all bar the 127th were SAC units.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the paragraph in question actually adds much to the article - why mention SAC units (and not all the SAC units) in the design and development section? I'm tempted to remove it.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of bizarre. 127th Wing redirects to Michigan Air National Guard and 127th Fighter-Bomber Wing redirects to an unrelated unit. No page on the wing itself. However, the 127th Wing has been a fighter wing, but it never had any of the three designations listed in the article. The wings listed (except for the 127th) were all SAC units. However, there were ADC units, TAC units, USAFE units, PACAF units, ANG units and reserve units that flew the straight wing version of the F-84. These were not the first operational units to fly the F-84, the 14th Fighter Group (ADC) was Knaack with F-84Bs, the 20th Fighter Group (TAC) was the first to equip with the F-84C. I agree with Nigel Ish that this doesn't belong in the development section. It also implies that wings that were not even around until 1953 were flying the Hog in 1948 (407th, 506th). --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lineage of US aviation units of all their armed forces seems a bit crazy and coverage on Wikipedia is inconsistent - the 127th FBW article actuallly covers the 127th Fighter Squadron - which is the one that was/is part of the Kansas ANG - there does appear to have been a separate 127th Wing which at some stage became page of the Michigan ANG, possibly as some sort of umbrella wing for the 107th Squadron - wether it has anything to do with the F-84 is another question.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Possibly a list of USAF units that flew the F-84 is warranted under Operators, but not here. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lineage of US aviation units of all their armed forces seems a bit crazy and coverage on Wikipedia is inconsistent - the 127th FBW article actuallly covers the 127th Fighter Squadron - which is the one that was/is part of the Kansas ANG - there does appear to have been a separate 127th Wing which at some stage became page of the Michigan ANG, possibly as some sort of umbrella wing for the 107th Squadron - wether it has anything to do with the F-84 is another question.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of bizarre. 127th Wing redirects to Michigan Air National Guard and 127th Fighter-Bomber Wing redirects to an unrelated unit. No page on the wing itself. However, the 127th Wing has been a fighter wing, but it never had any of the three designations listed in the article. The wings listed (except for the 127th) were all SAC units. However, there were ADC units, TAC units, USAFE units, PACAF units, ANG units and reserve units that flew the straight wing version of the F-84. These were not the first operational units to fly the F-84, the 14th Fighter Group (ADC) was Knaack with F-84Bs, the 20th Fighter Group (TAC) was the first to equip with the F-84C. I agree with Nigel Ish that this doesn't belong in the development section. It also implies that wings that were not even around until 1953 were flying the Hog in 1948 (407th, 506th). --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the paragraph in question actually adds much to the article - why mention SAC units (and not all the SAC units) in the design and development section? I'm tempted to remove it.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Willis there was a 127th Fighter Squadron which was part of the ANG - but based at Wichita (which would suggest the Kansas ANG rather than Michigan?), which was activated to join the 137th Fighter Bomber Wing of TAC. Willis doesn't mention the various 127th Wings. Of the ones list in the last paragraph of the Design and development section, all bar the 127th were SAC units.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- V2 is over technical, I have piped it to "takeoff safety speed". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We need page numbers for McLaren. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For that it needs someone with access to McLaren - I have asked on Wp:Military History. Otherwise, if we want cites with that degree of accuracy, it is replace where possible and remove where not.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping everyone here buidhe, Nigel Ish, Peacemaker67, @WP:MILHIST coordinators: . Hi everyone I took a two-month break because of my exams and back then this was nominated though this nomination was back then dead for already two months. Now I'm back I want to finish this so that we have a small clean-up with our ARCs. Can we please have a look into this? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to RL stuff, I don't think I'll be able to follow up here until March 2 at the earliest, and it'll probably be a few days after that so I can catch up on more urgent things. Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the only outstanding stuff is the missing page numbers from McLaren. Can anyone spot anything else that needs to be done?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not planning to follow up, all I can say is that the article is not what it was when I last commented, so please disregard my comment. (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This Article has Received Class A on Military History Project after a review. You may find it here. Is it possible to get a A class review for this project ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The WPMILHIST standards and review process are fairly rigorous, probably more so than the FA process. That, and I'm seriously unconcerned with the development of the article being nominated and am more than content to let WPMILHIST have the lead in determining the article's quality. -- Born2flie (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article has been well reviewed and looks solid to me. A couple comments though. It seems "I./" means the larger organization JG.1 is part of, or something else. That should be explained in the article (if not already). Also, it would be good to reduce the number of red links if reasonably possible. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the standard Group naming that was followed by Luftwaffe at the time. Its been explained in the "Organization Structure" section. As far as red links are concerned, they refer to people, places and organizations that played an important role in the history of this unit. One could remoe them but out of respect to their contribution, it might be better to keep them.Perseus71 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. If the red link person or thing is notable enough to get an article one day, sure keep it. Just something to consider. That's why I added "if reasonably possible" with the request. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure I understand. You might want to know that an article was recently started for one of the red links Heinz Knoke! Perseus71 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm not a member of this project, I reviewed it for MILHIST's A-class, and all the problems I found there have been dealt with. It appears to be a very good article, with the only impediment to FA that I can foresee is that it could use a bit of a copyedit. – Joe Nutter 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has underwent an independent Copy-Edit by the WP:MIL Editor USER:Patton123. Perseus71 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I did some work on the page a few months ago and have just done a lot of small edits since June 5 2010 on references and style and feel the page is now very close to, if not already at, A-Class standard.
Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment:
The Lead has some details that do not appear to be covered in the body of the article. The Lead should summarize, not bring up new content.-Fnlayson (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just tried to fix that problem and I think that it's all cleared up now. Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
CommentsSupport (with comments)It has always been my understanding that the lead does not need to include references if the material is cited later in the article (see WP:LEADCITE). Most of the information in the lead isn't controversial (such as the name of the company, or when acquisitions occurred), so it doesn't need to be cited in the lead.I find the TOC to be incredibly long. I suggest limiting the depth of the TOC to make it more manageable. See WP:TOC.The history section is very choppy and a bit confusing for me. Kind of related to my TOC comment... I don't see why you need headers between each paragraph. I know there is a separate History of British Airways article, but this main article should still contain some prose.Along the same lines, some of the sections don't make sense to me. Why is the formation of the company grouped with Concorde?Is there a ref for BA becoming the the world's most profitable airline in the 1990s? And why does their slogan have to do with that?Assume good faith for citation hidden behind paywall. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]"Dirty tricks" and "aftermath of dirty tricks" seems like they should be combined.
When did it become a oneworld member?You can put the ref at the end of a sentence, rather than in the middle, for sentences like "British Airways has, with the exception of 29 of its Boeing 777 fleet, equipped its aircraft exclusively with British-made Rolls-Royce engines..." under "Fleet".Is Airline seat the best choice of a "see also" for the cabin section?Do you need a whole subheading for two sentence paragraph? ("Seating policies")Is there a particular reason that BA no longer operates flights to/from Wales and Northern Ireland?Do we know what any of the expanded benefits are available for the Premiere program?I am used to seeing the publication city in book citations, but I don't think it's required.
- Overall, I think there's a lot of good information in the article, it just needs some cleaning up to get to A-class. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've fixed those problems now
except the publication city (I don't even know where to find that) and the references in the intro. However, I don't feel there are too many references and other articles have references in the intro so unless it will actually prevent the article from getting to A-Class standard, I feel they should be kept.Thanks again, Plane Person (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Ok, I'm reading through the article again, I'll strike things or make comments as I get to them.
- An additional comment-- There is a lot of Wikipedia:Citation overkill in this article. For example, you don't need three citations support Concorde's first passenger flight. Or two citations for its last. Or three citations for when a CEO was selected. It's worth using multiple citations for particularly controversial statements, but there's not a lot of controversy in the article. Take a look and see what you can prune back. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another citation comment-- I'm having serious readablility issues with the number of citations in this article. Another example is this line for the marketing section - "It created the influential "Face" commercial for the airline;[83] following the termination of its relationship with BA,[84] it also made an imitation of this commercial for rival Silverjet in 2007.[85]". That one sentence has three citations in it, and they occur every few words. It is very difficult to read that straight through. Take a look at your sources and see what you can cull. In that example, you don't need a separate source for the end of the relationship and the imitation campaign. The source you use for the imitation (85) also discusses the end between BA and the ad company, just use one source when you can. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'm reading through the article again, I'll strike things or make comments as I get to them.
I think I've fixed all the major problems outlined now, if there are any remaining poorly referenced areas can you let me know. I've tried to correct all the problems listed above so does that mean it's ready for an A-Class rating? Thanks, - Plane Person (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Ok, more citation comments. You don't need to have citations on every sentence either, particularly when each sentence has the same source! A few examples...
The second paragraph of "History"-- There are three citations with source [3] in a row... just cite it once at the last instance (e.g., after the "...continuation of the flight to Bahrain" sentence"). You end that same paragraph with two citations for [6]. There is nothi ng in between them, just cite it once at the end.- The paragraph starting with "In 1992, British Airways expanded..." -- Each sentence is cited with source [9]... just cite it once at the end of the paragraph.
- Ok, more citation comments. You don't need to have citations on every sentence either, particularly when each sentence has the same source! A few examples...
- The lead looks much better now. I do have few more comments for you, specifically on the paragraph which begins "British Airways is listed on the.."
You can get rid of that lead citation by moving (or copying/rephrasing) that sentence down to the corporate affairs section.The rest of that paragraph is a random collection of facts... why is the Iberia merger listed down there, and not in the second lead paragraph, which is all about mergers?The 35th anniversary comment seems out of place as well.
- One more lead comment... I know I asked you to remove cites from the lead, but if you leave a quote there ("one of the most bitter and protracted libel actions in aviation history") you need to have a quote.
- Ok, this one is still active. Per Wikipedia:CITE#When_quoting_someone, if you've got a quote the cite has to go directly after the quote. I know you have three things quoted there... is there any chance there is a single quote you can use that says all you need to say?
- -SidewinderX (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I feel I've corrected them now. However, I haven't moved the Iberia merger into 2nd lead paragraph because that is about creation, privatisation and expansion, not directly on mergers which are not a form of expansion. Can you score off everything you feel I've fixed and if you could just point out where the publication city is and what is confusing in the history section. Also, how do you propose to limit the depth of the TOC, I can't think of what headings to cut? Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm still trying to read through your updates, sorry I haven't been scoring things off as quickly as I could have been. The history section is much better now (other than the cite comments I've written above). I'll take another look at the ToC. The publication city is usually listed on the first few pages of the book, right where the publisher is listed. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done some more work on the page and I've fixed the problem with the reasoning for BA not operated outside the London area (cited in the "Operations" section) and I've shortened the ToC, fixed all the citation problems outlined and worked on the lead to fix all those issues. Thanks for all the guidance, Plane Person (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Ok, we're looking much better here! There are still a few instances of citation issues; e.g., in the "loyalty programs" section the first three sentences are each cited with source [115]. You only need to cite it once. Remember, the general guidance is one or two citations per paragraph, not per sentence. I still urge you to go through and look for places where you can eliminate/combine sources. You're allowed to use one source for multiple facts... you don't need a seperate source.
Also, I noticed a bunch of the references don't have a "Retrieved" date.
- -SidewinderX (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now taken out the publication city from all the references and added "Retrieved" dates on all the references. I think I've sorted out the citation overkill and other citation problems but if I haven't could you point them out please. Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Ok, the refs look pretty consistant now, and you have cleaned up a lot of the citation mess. I still think there are sports to consolidate and clean up (for example, the second to last paragraph in the "Industrial relations" section has 6 references for a 5 sentence paragraph... remember the general guideline is 1 ref per paragraph, not sentence), but I don't think it's problematic enough to oppose this article as A-class. I do think you'll really need to work on that if you want to take it to FA, however. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more work on the referencing and cleared up some issues that jumped out at me. Hopefully I'll have cleared up that Industrial Relations part but I can't take out any more references without cutting out some of the content - do you think that will be necessary? Also, at the soonest possible time (and don't rush if you’re really busy at the moment with the articles your working on) could you score out what I've done, I'm trying to locate the comments that I haven't fixed and at the moment it's quite difficult to know if they have been fixed or not. Thanks again, Plane Person (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Ok, I've tried to strike out all the specific things you've taken care of. I'm leaving the general citation comments unstruck... I support this article for A-class, but I still think those are things you need to look at if you want to go to FA. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that two more editors now need to say that it is A-Class as well? I'll keep working on the article before submitting my FA-Class assessment. Thanks for all your help, couldn't have done it without you, Plane Person (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I believe you need the support of at least three editors for the article to achive A-class. I reccomend poking people at the WP:Aviation and the WP:Aircraft talk pages. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the History is mostly OK, but it misses the 1976 agreement where BA and British Caledonian were not allowed to compete on long-haul routes. I added a sentence and refs from History of British Airways#1970s: Consolidation and Concorde. It may need some rewording. Also, the sentence following this probably needs a reference. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Very solid now. Good work. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean that you're supporting the article for A-Class? Thanks for the comments, Plane Person (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Yep. Reviewers generally provide a Support, Oppose or Comment. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article is mainly well-balanced and I just have a few observations, but I am not an expert on A-class criteria so I would support promotion but with the following comments:
- Industrial relations - appears to dwell to much in the present and should really give an overview of issues since 1974 in summary as the detail should be in the history daughter article.
- Fleet - this has been changes over the months as it originally if I remember tried to give the view that it had always bought Boeing aircraft until the Airbus A320 order. It also has pov statement British Airways has, with the exception of 29 of its Boeing 777 fleet, equipped its aircraft exclusively with British-made Rolls-Royce engines as far as I know RR dont build the engine for the Airbus aircraft. Just my opinion but I think it should cover inherited aircraft then work its way through the major type replacement orders. More space is given to future aircraft then past decisions!
- But overall some good work in the article by all involved.MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the comment of RR not building engines for A320 family aircraft: they don't build them directly, but they design/build them through partnership in the International Aero Engines alliance. I'll make the IAE point clearer. I'll see what I can add about past fleet decisions but it seems pretty much as if it has all been covered, if a bit quickly. Also, I'll try and add parts about previous stike action by BA staff into the industrial relations section. Thanks for the comments, Plane Person (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- OK I support promotion - with the engine bit clearer (although the 318s are CFM56 powered!) I dont see anything else that impedes A class. The fleet stuff is OK and improvements can be done later I will see what I can dig up MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done some more work on the industrial relations and fleet section if you want to check them. They may need rewording but I think the content should be better now. Thanks for the support, Plane Person (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello everyone, I have marked Bengaluru International Airport for A class status considerations by the commitee. I feel this article does qualify the criteria for A class. I request it to be reviewed. --Abhishek191288 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not a quality article. First try for a GA nominations before A class review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm inclined to agree; this article has uncited sections and tags of issues that need addressing. To be honest, this article should have gone through the GA nomination process to knock these basic flaws out before an A-class nomination; it would be better to proceed through there first to achieve success at this level. Kyteto (talk)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello everyone,
I have considered the review of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport for A class status. I do feel that this airport article does qualify for the same. Please review the article. --Abhishek191288 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - There are over half the paragraphs are completely uncited, plenty of bitty little sections of questionable relevance that could have been merged into larger groups instead (such as Fuelling). Some areas are preciously scant; and I don't think this has been adquitely prepared or ready to be reviewed on this level. Kyteto (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per above. Also, first try for a GA nominations before A class review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After two years of tinkering in a sandbox, the article just passed GA evaluation. I'm hoping to take it up to FA-class, but in the interim I A-class is a good intermediate stop. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Not promoted —Compdude123 04:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, I feel Cochin International Airport if fit for a review for A Class level, as the page has significantly improved with qualitative information, citations, references, encyclopedic content and pictures. I feel the article is fit for an A status. Kindly review it --Arunvarmaother (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a brochure or essay rather than an encyclopedic article. The article is filled with lot of unwanted and irrelevant minute details.
Most of the citations are not working or false and majority of the claims are not cited. There are lot of space to improve in grammar, content and credibility.
Even though the article has improved in length, quality is lacking. In short, the article is not yet ready for Class A. -- Induzcreed (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The track-record of above user- Induzcreed is very dubious, as he was interested to vandalize several Kochi related pages and articles. Even in review stage, the above user hasn't mentioned which citations links is missing, which citations are false, which claims he is talking specifically, which is not the style or the format of a review. When determining quality, such as grammar, prose style, the above user hasn't mentioned specifically. If he has specific issues, he must point out, which he failed. A general statement, shows his basic idea in ensuring a good article that goes against his motives and interest, pass review test. On a closer look, Cochin Airport page has one of the highest number of citations which rarely any other similar page have, which proves its validity. I request senior and other individuals, who have experience in reviewing articles to review and consider the article--Arunvarmaother (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I too back Induzcreed in this matter. The article is written much sloapy and puffery. Many claims are not cited. Some cited sources does not actually back the claim made. For instance, a lead sentence "The Cochin airport has been termed as one of the most consistent profitable airport in India despite the major slowdown across the airports in various cities in India" looks like an attempt to boost the airport. None of the citations clearly says anything about CIAL being the most profitable. The fact is that all international airports in India are profitable, and cochin airport is also one of them. But the lead sentence gives the reader a false or confused message. The article length is another concern. So many minute details and silly information are added, which reduces the quality of the article. --Samaleks (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many sentences reads like a blog entry. For eg; the sentence "It was then, V.J Kurien proposed the model of private-public partnership which was unheard at that time." How the editor arrived at the thought that no one was aware about private-public partnership? Another one : "Though the project received several objections and criticisms for proposing it outside Government of India's control, the strong determination of V.J Kurien, helped it to start." What were the objections and criticisms? Please provide citations. It sounds a little peacock-word for V.J.Kurien; isn't it ? Another example of false claim : "The airport area is under direct protection of Kochi Airport Police having a police station outside the terminal." There is no force called Kochi Airport Police. The internal link is given to "Kochi city police" and is masked with "Kochi Airport Police". If it is the city police that is in charge of the protection, why it should be named as Kochi Airport Police in the article? The sentence could be like "Kochi city police in in charge of the airport protection" as it would be more precise and conveys a clear message; right? There are numerous flaws in the article, and is way far from a Class A status now. I request the editors attached with this article to pitch in to rectify these negetives. --Samaleks (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the citations, you will understand the sentence meaning. I can comment on your first example, The Cochin airport has been termed as one of the most consistent profitable airport in India despite the major slowdown across the airports in various cities in India
The links justifies the claims, especially a few newspaper reports like Hindu etc. In India, only a few airports are profitable. For example even large airports like Hyderabad, New Delhi Airports are in Loss http://www.livemint.com/2010/09/27002625/Hyderabad-airport-seeks-hike-i.html. Only a very few airports are profitable, say Chennai, Mumbai, Cochin etc. Cochin Airport recorded consistent profits since 2002, and profit percentages only soar even in recession, instead of decline. The statement is CIAL is ONE OF THE PROFITABLE, not the ONLY PROFITABLE. So that justifies the claim.
Regarding VJ Kurien, the PDF citations along with CIAL's website citations quotes, that it was his determination that made the airport. An Interview with him in a respectable website like Rediff is given, to show the extent of determination and troubles which he faced to start the airport. So it due respect must be given to its founder director. The level of criticisms were mentioned in that PDF citation, made as a case study for Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad, an authority in this area. CIAL was the first case of PPP model in India, as there were no Public-Private partnership models prior to 1997. So its naturally unheard in the country.
Finally, there is not police called airport police, but definetly has a police station called Airport Police Station, established for external security. http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/20/stories/2008102058250300.htm. Do you think, what name should we give to a police force operating inside an airport, other than airport police?
I thank for your suggestions, but must consider the extent of citations given and must go through it in detail, rather looking things superficial.--Arunvarmaother (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not here for an argument. I just shared my thoughts, thats all. You have done a really great job in expanding the article. Many details are added, and arranged in a good manner. But I feel that as a whole, the article needs further improvement. I am sure that you can do that. Please attend to the points I made earlier. I feel that it is not addressed, but justified here. For eg; I still feel that masking the airport police is not accurate. The sentence can be rewritten as "Kochi city police in in charge of the airport protection" as it would be more precise and conveys a clear message. This is just one example. Thanks a lot, --Samaleks (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Several paragraphs in the article read just like an advertisement. Who has written them that way? It is the nom - Arunvarmaother. He had added several unwanted/repeated images to the article (which are deleted from wiki now). He used to add info just based on his thoughts, does not want to believe in facts. Even some of the citations that he provided were either outdated or out-of-context. This issue was raised several times by the user Induzcreed, and Mr Arunvarmaother considers the former to be vandalising the article. There is a clear violation of NPOV in the article apart from it being written like an advertisement. Until the entire article is re-written to meet wikipedia standards, I do not think this article would qualify for an A-class status. I am not against the article, but once it is re-written to meet wikipedia standards, I would definitely support the cause for it to get an A-Class stats. Until then, sorry. --Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Out of curiosity, wouldn't it make more sense to get the article to GA class, or even B class, before attempting an A-class review? Frankly, just looking at the article I could already tell you that it would fail GA review for not adhering to WP:LEAD. (At the very least, leads should summarize, not introduce new information, so there should not be any references in it.) Additionally there are entire paragraphs with no citation -- see first paragraph section Management, first paragraph section Expansion, last paragraph section Construction, and so on. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 13:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I share some similarities with Mukkakukaku's viewpoint: This article isn't ready for A class quality assessment; it wouldn't make the grade for GA as it is. Lots and lots of paragraphs that are uncited; and the coverage in places is far from what is to be expected, for instance the history for 80 years of operations is only three paragraphs in length, I'd expect there to be far more that could be being said and thus grounds to question the level of coverage, which isn't what I'd expect in an A Quality candidate. The article needs considerable development before it can be properly gauged at this level; keep working on it, and use the examples of existing GA-type airport articles for help, and it can make it in due time. Kyteto (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Closed as Not Promoted.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently promoted to GA status. The reviewing editor suggested I should push for FA status, so I thought I would go for A-Class first. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you requested a copyedit on the article? I have some problem areas, beginning in the second paragraph of the lead section; "easily recognizable" (by whom?), "fixed spatted undercarriage" (or is it its spatted, fixed undercarriage), etc.. I did not review the article for extensive use of technical jargon, but the caption for the photo of the wrecked Ju 87b refers to, "...positive and negative dihedral." While the photo and the caption are obviously intended to highlight something about the aircraft, I can't determine if it is the exposed spar and ribs, or the attachment bolt, or something else. Dihedral is not linked in any of its instances. I will hold my vote in reserve until further review of the article. --Born2flie (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposed. Not configured per WP:AIR/PC. Operational history should follow Development and precede Variants in a logical progression of history. Significant justification should be made for varying from the Aircraft project's guidelines. --Born2flie (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been reorged to follow WP:Air/PC layout. Some text may need to be moved from 1 section to another though. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizarre opposition since Dihedral was linked to in design section before the GA review. I'll wait for further comment before addressing any major issues. If others think it stands a shot at A-Class I'll give it a go at changing major parts. Dapi89 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further review, I agree that dihedral is linked in the first instance in the prose and that I must have overlooked it at the time. I think it should also be linked in the image caption as well, since the caption precedes the prose in occurence during reading the article (I read at 1024x768 resolution). I find the discussion in the Design section about the dihedral and anhedral angles of the gull wings to be unclear. I still have issues with the caption for the photo I mentioned prior to registering my dissent. It points out something that is not readily clear to the reader without them clicking on the image for a larger version and then searching for an attachment bolt. Does the wing demonstrate spars and ribs, or are they inherent structures to the design of the wing. I suppose the author of the caption meant that the Ju87, in its state of being wrecked and corroded, allowed viewers to see the exposed spars and ribs of the wing structure, even viewing the hard-to-find attachment bolt. Really, all I can see is its location and what I assume is the structure the bolt passes through to secure dihedral wing to the anhedral "wing root". --Born2flie (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizarre opposition since Dihedral was linked to in design section before the GA review. I'll wait for further comment before addressing any major issues. If others think it stands a shot at A-Class I'll give it a go at changing major parts. Dapi89 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been reorged to follow WP:Air/PC layout. Some text may need to be moved from 1 section to another though. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see some problems, mostly vague and potentially confusing descriptions. For example "automatic pull-up dive brakes" in the second paragraph is a rather awkward description for the Askania autopilot and dive-bombing system, and "essentially noise making propellers" is confusing as a description for the infamous "trumpet of Jericho" sirens driven by a small windmill. The term "spatted" is used for the undercarriage of the Ju 87A while, unlike the other Ju 87 models, this actually had trousers instead of spats. The MG 81Z was a not a "dual barrel machine gun" but a twin pair (Zwilling) of MG 81 machine guns in a compact twin installation. The description of the models has the B, C and R in a confusing order, the H gets the briefest of mentions, and the K is only mentioned in a footnote -- I admit that it indeed is a bit obscure. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a lot of minor grammatical errors and the like. It needs a thorough vetting for problems like that and much more attention paid to writing clearly. Several examples: The designers avoided welding parts wherever possible with preference given to moulded, cast, and rotary parts. This was to allow large airframe segments to be interchangeable as a complete unit and increase the rapidity of repair status to operational readiness. Why would welded parts prevent major assemblies from being exchanged between aircraft? And the second clause of the second sentence simply doesn't make sense. And another: After Plauth's death, Pohlmann continued the development of the Junkers dive bomber. The Ju A 48 registration D-ITOR, was originally fitted with a BMW 132 engine, producing some 450 kW (600 hp). The machine was also fitted with dive brakes for dive testing. It's implied, but not clearly stated, that the Ju A 48 was the follow on divebomber to the K47. Is this correct? I don't have Griehl at hand to figure it out. But these sentences are not well-written and aren't in the state required for an A-class article. There's a lot of good information here, but the language used is a hindrance to putting it across. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the images are lacking the alt= parameter. I beleive this to be required now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You folks have helped turn this into a fine article. Well referenced, with lots of background info. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The lede is a little on the light side, and several sentence/paragraphs in Development and History seem as if they could be merged together. --Born2flie (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a review checklist and some comments on the article talk page. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]