Talk:Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Aviation Portal

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

	This article has failed an A-Class review.
	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
	Aircraft WikiProject

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

[edit] Sources?

147.10.19.126 09:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Metro into airline service

I changed the first airline from Air Wisconsin to Commuter Airlines. The article "Final Metro Delivery" in Airways magazine Issue 64 states that the first airline to take delivery of a Metro was Commuter Airlines in January 1973. I found a web page with Air Wisconsin's fleet list (http://www.geocities.com/Aeromoe/fleets/airwisc.html), which states their first Metro entered service in April that year. YSSYguy 11:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article review

I noticed that this article has been nominated for an 'A' class review but is not yet a Good article. I have pasted the GA criteria below where editors can add comments. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A good article has the following attributes:

It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Comment I believe the lead section is too short (2-3 paras?) and is unreferenced (this was pointed out to me nominating another article for GA, which failed). On structure there are a lot of bolded types in the development section where perhaps it would be clearer if this info was moved into variants. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;^[2]

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;^[2] and

(c) contains no original research.
It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

Comment Could there be a comparable aircraft section like other aviation articles, Handley Page Jetstream and Embraer Bandeirante perhaps? Nimbus227 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Y Done Appears entirely neutral to me. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.^[4]

Y Done Article is stable. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.^[5] In this respect:

(a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and

(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Y Done All images checked. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is just an informal check list and not a GA nomination but if it passes this then who can argue?! Nimbus227 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the similar aircraft you mentioned, as well as the Becch 1900. I agree there is too much bolding, a lot of the info in operational history actually belongs in the Variants section. I more para for the intro would be good too. After I, or someone fixes this I'd put it up for GA. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)