Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Douglas XP-48

Douglas XP-48

I believe this article makes use of all the possible sources on this remakably obscure project, and I'm curious if I should bother submitting it for Good Article. Or, alternatively, what should be improved to get it there. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• Well, completely dead end articles have passed GA a lot. I don't really agree, but enough people will pass it so people will try their luck. Especially with pointscoring competitions, there are floods of 2k prose GAs being intensively farmed
• One another note, Baugher is self-published. Why is that reliable? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Baugher reliability thing has been batted about for awhile in WP:AIR discussions. The consensus seems to be that he should be considered reliable as a published expert, but I've revised the article to do without those citations. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

• "Inspiration" section:

• Might be worth explaining why the idea of a very light fighter aircraft was attractive at the time. (NB: I don't know!). Not sure why Model 312 is in bold.

• "Design and cancellation" section:

• "a wing of remarkably high aspect ratio" - there's a link, but given the article's pretty short, might be worth explaining in the text what "aspect ratio" means.
• "However, this very aspect of its design was regarded by suspicion by the Army Air Corps" - I'd avoid starting with an "however". Is the design aspect the speed of the aircraft? I couldn't quite understand why a fast aircraft would be regarded as suspicious. Or is the aspect the engine?
• "would never prove truly reliable" - could go for "never proved reliable".

• "Comparable aircraft" section:

• If sources allow it, this might work well by being integrated into the textual narrative. e.g. "similar models, such as the x, y or z..."

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get on these. Also, to answer your question, what was considered suspicious was that Douglas' performance claims for the aircraft were, by the Army's calcuations, physically impossible. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• Comments relating to A1:
  • "USAF Museum fact sheet" is not a clearly understandable contraction of ""Douglas XP-48". National Museum of the United States Air Force."
  • "American Aviation Historical Society Journal" is unintelligible to me. Was the article authored, is the title of the Journal Journal if so use the publisher field or manually Journal (American Aviation Historical Society).
  • Publication locations for all (Harleyford Publications).
  • Page references: Francillon 1979 ; American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Volume 28, Number 2. Summer 1983.?

Much thanks. As for the Journal, I'm going to have to try and get this through interlibrary loan; the snippet view on Google Books shows the info cited, but I can't figure out what the article title/author was. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! Good luck with the ILL process. You could ask at the Resource Exchange Page on Wikipedia if anyone with better/different access could get a hold of the citation information / full copy for research purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

• It's a nice little article, decently written, structured, cited and complete with supporting material. A bit too little IMO for GA though -- I know the class is designed for smaller-than-FA work but this pushes it for me. I realise there may not be a hell of a lot more to say on a failed project but if it was mine I'd be quite satisfied with B-Class for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I might be able to squeeze in a bit more, but I'll be quite happy with B. Thanks for the input! :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)