Talk:Tanker 910

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fire Portal Tanker 910 is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

	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 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 Aircraft WikiProject

Tanker 910 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: August 6, 2007

Tanker 910 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: August 27, 2007

[edit] GA Review

I have put on the article for hold. Improve on these and could be reviewed again.It has been withdrawn.

Responses to the concerns are inserted in green text.

1. Manual of Style: Pass'

It has correct grammar and spelling. It is also not confusing and does not have so much jargon in it.

1. Verifability: Weak Fail

I have tested the sources:

• 2 sources were "broken links"

• Only one broken link found, and removed. All other links are operable and have been tested as of this edit.

• All of them are websites, most being news updates

• I'm not sure I understand the issue here. All are reputable 3rd party secondary sources. That's the kind of refs we're supposed to have. I've added a few more, as well as 2 ELs, including a link to an NPR radio news report covering the aircraft.

I think these parts could be easily fixed, though.

1. Coverage: Fail

I believe this is the major problem.

• Does not have statistics, such as accelation and such

• I have added the specifications section from the DC-10 article pertaining to this aircraft. You'll have to live with the specs offered, as "acceleration" is not a standard aircraft spec.

• Also, some parts are way far too short. Let's expand a bit

• Which parts are too short? Please specify. Please also note that this article is about a specific aircraft, and we already have an extensive article, which is linked, about the type of aircraft."

This parts are the pain, so getting to work on these will be efficient

1. Neutrality: Pass

No problems with point-of-views

1. Stability: Weak Fail

It's not vandalized so often. However, AKradecki made most of the part in a day. I'm not sure if this can show stability.

I'm not sure how to address that...this article started as a stub in July, 2006, and has grown bit by bit as the new aircraft has garnered continuing media coverage. If the reviewers simply want the artilce to sit and exist for a period of time before another review, that's fine, just specifiy how long.

1. Images: Pass

No problems with fair use.

Good luck next time! --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Well, it's been long time coming, but here it is:

Response: completed items are noted in green and in-work or on-hold for resolution items are in purple. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• "wide-body" in lead - wikilink for significance?
  • Done.
• Don't forget to use non-breaking spaces between values and their units.
  • Hmmm...not sure what to do with this, as the spacing is automatic because the {{convert}} template is used for these, and it automatically sets the spacing. Suggestions?
• While it's great to have a free image, I'd be tempted, for the sake of this article, to modify it (the licence allows for it) so you focus on the aircraft rather than the massive plume of water coming out of it. Just an idea, see how it goes? Then you could create an infobox which would take the spec section out of the article and, while it repeats the DC-10 spec, would be a good thing for the article, up top near the lead.
  • Replaced image with one that focuses more on the aircraft. Moved water drop photo down. I'm leaving it in because it's the water drop capability that makes this aircraft so unique. If it wasn't for the water, this would be just another DC-10 rotting in the Mojave scrapyard.
• Development section seems to be a collection of single-sentence paragraphs - almost like a trivia list without the bullets - try to write as prose.
  • Should look better now.Kmmontandon 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm confused - the aircraft was "developed as a joint venture under the name of 10 Tanker Air Carrier ..." etc but the aircraft was "originally delivered to National Airlines in 1975, and subsequently flew for Pan Am, American Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and Omni." - so presumably it wasn't developed to fight fires, it was developed to fly passengers and was subsequently converted to drop water?
  • While I'd assume this would be intuitive, I've cleaned up the wording to make it more obvious what is meant.Kmmontandon 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• "...is computer controlled by the flight crew..." computer controlled or flight crew controlled?
  • One would assume that the flight crew is controlling the aircraft by way of computer. I think this is too clear to require editing.Kmmontandon 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ref [4] needs to move per WP:CITE.
• "...an initial attack aircraft..." - most people feel attack would be something different then what I assume is meant here - expand and clarify.
  • This is a common aerial firefighting term. I've wikilinked it over to the article where the term is discussed and defined. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Last two sentences of Development need to be merged into the prose.
  • Should look better now.Kmmontandon 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Use en-dash to separate years.
  • Done.
• Avoid "wasn't" - use "was not".
  • Done.
• Be consistent using CDF or CAL FIRE - better still, don't use them at all!
  • Consistized to CAL FIRE. Using this one because that's the preferred designation that the Department uses and which is used predominantly in the media as well. Not sure how I could not use it at all, as CAL FIRE is the contracting agency from the state that the aircraft is leased to, and is legally the "operator" of the aircraft.
• "The second usage was during the Rico Fire and the Horse Fire later in the same month, as well as the Columbia Complex Fire in Washington. " - none of these linked fires have articles so it diminishes their usefulness - to a non-expert this sentence becomes meaningless.
  • I've generalized this sentence a bit, removing the individual CA fires. Given the size of the Columbia Complex fire (109,000 acres), there's a really good chance that a wiki article will be written about this one, so if you don't mind, I'd prefer to leave it in, as it's a notable fire and 910's use against it was notable (first and only use outside of California).
• "(see below)".. yuck.
  • Removed.
• Keep citations in numerical order.
  • Done.
• Remove spec section and create infobox as per my first suggestion.
  • Done, I borrowed the coding from {{UAV}} and modified as needed...it's not the standard WikiProject Aircraft infobox, as that one doesn't include specs fields, because specs are prescribed to be in their own section, but it should do.

Quite a lot to do I think, so I'll fail it for now. Feel free to get back to me if you'd like further suggestion or comment, or clarification of my comments. All the best, The Rambling Man 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA re-visited

Ok, Akradecki asked me for a re-review subsequent to my comments above. Here you go.

• "...the only wide-body jet air tanker currently in fire service..." - in the USA, in the world?
  • Yes. Evergreen was developing a 747 tanker, but abandoned the project.
• "The conversion of the original airframe to a fire-fighting aircraft was a joint venture under the name of 10 Tanker Air Carrier between Cargo Conversions of San Carlos, California and Omni Air International, with conversion work being performed by Victorville Aerospace at the Victorville Airport." needs citation.
• Explain "baffle" or wikilink (for the non-expert).
• Add a full stop (period) before ref [4] per [[WP:CITE].
• Last two paras of Usage could be merged to improve flow.
• Minor point, and perhaps invalid, but "2007–2009" I prefer "2007–09".
• I think it may be useful to create an article about "Fire season" for those of us who know nothing about it. Then you could link to it from here.
• "Tanker 910 was also activated for the Moonlight Fire in Plumas County, as of September 6, 2007." needs citation.
• "...they are happy with the aircraft..." - not really encyclopaedic unless you can "quote" it.
• Slight excess on external links...

So I'll suggest attending to my comments. It's in a much better state than when I initially reviewed it. Good work. The Rambling Man 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)