Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The review department of the Aviation WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles within its scope.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

It also provides a convenient collection of aviation articles currently undergoing formal review outside the project:


Peer review[edit]

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request an peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.

To add a nomination:

Step 1 - Create nomination subpage[edit]

Create a nomination subpage; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review. To create your own subpage, enter the name of the article you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wright Flyer) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

Step 2 - Transclude and link[edit]

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Peer review list direct link), pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees.

Step 3 - Advertise and notify[edit]

  1. Advertise the review by adding a link at {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}}, and add peer-review=yes to the {{WPAVIATION}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax). This creates a notice to notifying other editors of the review.

How to respond to a request

  • Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title.
  • Feel free to correct the article yourself.

How to remove a request
In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may remove to the archive any

  • inactive listings or listings older than one month,
  • inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments)
  • articles that have become featured article candidates

After removing the listing, contributors should replace the peer-review=yes tag in the banner with old-peer-review=yes.

How to resubmit a request
If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time:

  1. Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archive1]] or the next open archive
  2. Edit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and leaving [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion.
  3. Update the article talk page to reflect the new link to the archived peer review
  4. Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below.


Please add new requests below this line

Robin D. S. Higham[edit]


* Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a newly created article that could benefit from the expertise of those from this WikiProject.


TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Curtiss Thrush[edit]


* Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Looking for an initial rating, hoping to get page to GA-class. I believe it meets the requirements for all 5 criteria but am looking for additional feedback on how to improve the page. Thanks,

- NiD.29 (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Boeing 377 Stratocruiser[edit]


* Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has never been given a rating before, and I believe it meets GA-class standards.

  • 1. For Criteria #1. All the material in this article is sound with regard to respect of copyrights. All the images meet these guidelines as well, and are sourced from the U.S. Government or museum archives. All spelling and grammatical features are good, and the style of writing effectively conveys the information present.
  • 2. For Criteria #2. It has a good array of sources, from the internet as well as books. The new source I added is a book bought from the Boeing store in Seattle, and is of great detail and merit. All information sourced from smaller enthusiast websites are consistent with information given by Boeing or other textual references of merit. No citations needed or original research
  • 3. For Criteria #3. The article now covers aspects of its inception, its engineering details, order details, company rationale for order, operational history, comparison to contemporaries, and historical references.
  • 4. For Criteria #4. The article describes the airplane very neutrally. It does not claim any level of superiority except that which may be quantified, i.e. performance, airline product, etc.
  • 5. For Criteria #5. Not much editing is done, many clusters of editing are a result of non-user edits which do not meet Wikipedia criteria.
  • 6. For Criteria #6. Every section contains photos, and there are a wealth of archival photos which show the main operators, variants, and other features which give visual backup to the text. No crash photos are available with quality, therefore those are left out.

This article contains a good amount of quality information with regard to all aspects of its service life. The reviewer may note that this plane was produced in small numbers compared to its contemporaries, had few operators, and no examples exist. It is unknown to many people even in aviation (myself an licensed pilot can vouch for this) do not know this airliner exists, and as such, among the best information available has been organized here.


Spartan7W § 02:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Trying for initial rating, with GA-class being rationalized in my points. Spartan7W § 02:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy International Airport[edit]


* Further information

I've listed this article for peer review to get from B-class to GA-class based on the grading/quality scale and here's why it meets each criterion:

  • 1. For Criteria #1, I verified that all material had met the copyright policies and it did so. All images were verified to have met such guidelines. Also, all spelling and grammar is sophisticated and proper with good sentences and thoughtful structure.
  • 2. For Criteria #2, I verified all references and today, much time was spent converting a few bare references into scientific references. It has a list of 140 good supporting references. None have [not in citation given] or [dead link] tags. Also, all refs were checked that the content did not contain original research.
  • 3. For Criteria #3, I verified that it covered the main topic. I made sure that stuff such as the terminals also contained enough details without having too much pointless, excess detail.
  • 4. For Criteria #4, the wording alone and the meaning of the content is very neutral. Even some (such as the Pan Am flying saucer demolition petition) incidents that could've lead to an opinion or biased information, led to a neutral statement that was verified by the petition about what type of people and was also introduced in a non-biased manner.
  • 5. For Criteria #5, the page history says enough. There are not often content disputes, and since I've been editing the article, I have not seen an edit war take place on the article.
  • 6. For Criteria #6, most sections contain at least one photo, diagram, map, etc. The only ones that don't are ones where a photo would not contribute to the article nor add any encyclopedic value to the article.

For those who are skeptical that it should be a GA, comment below about why you don't think it doesn't meet it. If you think it does, then comment below about why you think so.


WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 23:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Trying to go from B-class to GA-class. WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 23:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review[edit]

Requesting a review

To request an A-Class review of an article:

  1. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPAVIATION}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the status of the article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  6. Advertise the review by adding a link at {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}}.

If an article is nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be demoted:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new nomination page).
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the nomination statement (e.g. "Prior nomination here.").

There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.


Reviewers should keep the criteria for featured articles in mind when supporting or opposing a nomination. However, please note that (unlike actual featured articles) A-Class articles are not expected to fully meet all of the criteria; an objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article. In particular, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting should be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-Class status even if it could use some further copyediting.

Closing and archiving

Reviews will be closed after a sufficient time has elapsed. An article will generally be promoted to A-Class if (a) it has garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors, and (b) there are no substantive objections; a nomination with an isolated objection may pass, however, if that objection is not indicative of a major flaw in the article.

To close a review, coordinators should:

  1. Add {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}} to the top and bottom of the review subpage, respectively.
  2. Change the A-Class=current in the {{WPAVIATION}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page to either A-Class=pass (if the nomination is successful) or A-Class=fail (if it is not), and update the assessment class if needed.
  3. Move the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} from the list of requests below to the archive page.
  4. Remove the article link from the A-Class review list at {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}}.

A-Class requests[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer[edit]

The article just passed the A-Class review at WikiProject Military history. I think it may qualify here too. Thanks for constructive feedback. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi mate, just a procedural note: unless something's changed recently, the Aviation wikiproject accepts MilHist ACR assessments, similar to the arrangement between MilHist and the Ships project -- so this would already be A-Class for Aviation, and should have been marked as such when the MilHist ACR was closed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning)[edit]

This article has achieved FL standard but has developed into far more than just a list. it now needs to be assessed as a stand-alone article not just as a list!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably worth testing it at FAC because right now, it wouldn't stand a cat's chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War[edit]

Article passed a peer-preview a year ago, contains 150+ references, a good lead, etc. and I believe that it meets all the requirements for A-class. Maybe it needs some work in expanding the introduction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Comments

  • The quote in the lead from Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt should be trimmed to remove the number of helicoptors lost in Iraq and Afganistan. Including that number confuses the reader because it is out of date and covers both theaters, not just Iraq (which is the focus of the list). I suggest "In March 2007, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt said that he was concerned that helicoptors lost in Iraq and Afganistan were not being replaced fast enough."
Some editors asked for official sources that show the number of shootdowns. I think this gives us an estimate for the situation back in 2007. I'll try to find another source. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Any luck finding another source? Or maybe one that speaks to only the Iraq theater? If you can't find a more recent one, I suggest wording something like "By March 2007, U.S. Army officials had said that at least 130 helicoptors had been shot down". Honestly, that may not be any better. I understand the desire to have an official source for some number but if the official source confuses the count used in the article I think it does more harm than good. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything more recent. Most of the links use out list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This one discusses only shootdowns and not accidents, I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, until something better comes along, what's there will do. It's not a deal breaker. -SidewinderX (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done A more recent and complete report published and added to the text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The V-22 sentence in the lead makes claims that are not supported by the source. Either find a source for the claims, or remove them. IMO, just replace them with the statements from the source, which all support the V-22 as an improvement over existing helicoptors. The sentence, as written, claims that it is no better or even more vulenerable.  Done
  • The lead should mention that the list does not include unmanned aircraft of any type. (Or perhaps the article should be moved to List of manned aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War?)  Done
  • "The change of tactics of the US Army resulted in reducing the number of shootdowns." This claim comes from a seemingly off-hand comment in the last line of the source, which doesn't actually say anything about a change in tactics (only "precautions"), and doesn't specify the US Army (on "military"). I suggest that the line is just removed, it doesn't add much IMO.
We have to comment the reduce of the shootdowns in the last years somehow. I 've no idea how. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe try and directly paraphrase the article more closely (mention the decline in violence and precuations... I guess tactics is an acceptable subsititute for "precautions" -SidewinderX (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done 22:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems like the style here is to link the aircraft in each instance, which I agree with. I noticed a few that weren't wikilinked, scan through again to make sure everything that needs to be wikilinked is wikilinked.  Done
  • Maybe wikilink aircraft names in the table at the bottom?  Done
  • Scan through again and make sure that tense is being used constantly (seems like present is the choice of the article, fine IMO)  Done

Looks like you're almost there! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I ll do some today but my iinternet access is a bit limited till April. I ll do most of the stuff in 2 weeks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I did the best I could. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Magioladitis has put plenty of work into this article... Support! -SidewinderX (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice work! I do have a couple of issues that should be addressed though:
    • Helicopters, 2008: The IqAF no longer uses the "triangle eight" (if I may coin a phrase?) roundel. The only 'roundel' used now is the national flag. Changing this would probably be a good idea (as in the 2005 Comp Air crash, which shows the correct 'roundel'.)  Done
    • Helicopters, 2006: May 27 AH-1W crash is unreferenced.  Done
    • Helicopters, 2005: Referencing of December 26 AH-64D collision is unclear. August 30 OH-58 crash unreferenced.  Done
    • Helicopters, 2004: September 4 "Kiowa Down" incident unreferenced. August 11 CH-53E crash unreferenced. April 11 AH-64D shootdown unreferenced. April 7 OH-58 shootdown unreferenced. January 13 AH-64 shootdown unreferenced.  Done
    • Helicopters, 2003: October 13 OH-58 crash unreferenced. August 28 CH-47 writeoff unreferenced. Destruction of March 23rd AH-64D writeoff unreferenced.  Done

**Fixed-wing aircraft, 2008: November 28 C-23 accident unreferenced.  Done

    • Fixed-wing aircraft, 2003: April 7 F-15E crash unreferenced.  Done
Fixing these up should be the only work needed. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 01:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Done all! -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Support. Nice work. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • No source is provided for the statement that "At least 278 personnel have been killed in helicopter crashes since the invasion, and 19 have died in fixed-wing crashes."
It's based on the counting from the data given in the lists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
How do you know that the casualty figures reported in all of those news stories turned out to be accurate? The figure could potentially be lower if any of the stories over stated the number of casualties. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The mention of Operation Desert Badger in the lead seems out of place given that this article covers operations during the Iraq War
What do you think we have to do about it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Remove it - it's irrelevant to the topic of this article Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done Removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The 'Summary per type' and 'Summary per year' are sourced to the article, and not an external reliable source. As a result, these figures may not include all loses.
There are all double-checked by the links given in the External links section. No link covers the whole period of 7 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Given that most of those references don't appear to be reliable sources that doesn't really address my concern I'm afraid. Moreover, given that the news stories were generally written at the time of the shootdown or accident, how do you know that none of the aircraft were later assessed as being repairable and repaired (the tables are claimed to be 'losses') or that none of the media releases and news stories miss-identified the aircraft? (which is hardly uncommon). Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • There's some inconsistency with how military units are named (eg, "2nd Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, 25th Infantry Division" and 2-6 CAV both appear; I'd suggest using the first option as it's clearer to people who aren't familiar with US military abbreviations. 'CAV' and 'Cav' and 'AVN' and 'Avn' both also appear)
        •  Done Renamed all Avn to Aviation Brigade and Cav to Cavalry Regiment. there were 15-20 of them in total. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Are there any more that I should rename/fix? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Why is a book about an incident which occurred in the 1990s listed as being 'further reading' for this article on losses which occurred from 2003 onwards?
Because this books refers to many incidents happened after 2003. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Several of the external links don't appear to be reliable sources or add any value beyond what's in the article
Example? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (seems to be someone's personal blog), (dead link and not a very likely source judging from the URL, (what makes this reliable?), (reliable, but contains nothing that's not already in the article) Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The entries need to be checked for inaccuracies such as "An AH-1W SuperCobra 165321 from HMLA-369 shot down near Ramadi, killing the two pilots" - SuperCobras are crewed by a pilot and a pilot/gunner. There are a number of other entries claiming that these helicopters and Kiowas have two 'pilots'
      Comment: The crew for these aircraft is two qualified pilots. One pilot occupies the gunner position. In the Kiowa Warrior, the left-seat pilot sits in the copilot/gunner (CPG) position; However, it is the pilot in the right-seat, referred to as the pilot, who fires the weapons.--Born2flie (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • There are a number of problems with references:
Tagged as dead link. I 'll try to find an active one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • A number of references are missing access dates Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Which ones? I checked almost all and I found none. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Refs 38, 57 (used multiple times), 64, 65, 78, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, etc. There are quite a lot. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Working on them right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done Added accessdates to all links. Updated 1-2 links. Found 1 dead-link. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed every issue came up. Anything else is has to be done? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The article still contains an unreferenced statement about total casualties, and unreferenced summary tables. The aircraft types are also greatly over-linked. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The aircraft types are not over-linked anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Bgwhite completed the delinking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates[edit]


Featured article candidates are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate an article for featured article status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the official instructions.


Featured article review[edit]


Featured article reviews are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.


Non-article featured content candidates[edit]


Non-article featured content candidates are controlled by one of several external processes, depending on the type of content; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate something for featured status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the appropriate official instructions: