Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page	talk
Style guide
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Maintenance	talk
→ New articles (archive)	talk
Assessment department (Log)	talk
→ Featured articles (15)	talk
→ Good articles (54)	talk
Collaboration department	talk
Peer review department	talk
Contest	talk
Showcase
→ Featured picture gallery	talk
Portals
Project organization Coordinators talk Members talk Project banner talk Outreach department talk  → Current newsletter Project category talk
Templates Infobox templates  → Aviation infobox talk  → Airport infobox talk  → Airline infobox talk  → Aircraft infobox talk  → Aviator infobox talk  → Airliner accident infobox talk  → Mid-air accident infobox talk  → Company infobox talk Navigation boxes talk Featured article advice
Sub-projects Aircraft project talk Airlines project talk  → Defunct Airlines project talk Airports project talk Gliding project talk Rotorcraft talk Military aviation talk Aviation accident talk Air sports task force talk
This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

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:

• Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)
• A-Class review (a formal review of a candidate for an A-Class quality assessment)

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

• Featured article candidates
• Featured article review
• Non-article featured content candidates

Contents 1 Peer review 2 Requests 2.1 Helicopter 2.2 JAS 39 Gripen 2.2.1 Born2flie 2.2.2 Fnlayson 2.3 F-104 Starfighter 2.4 EasyJet 2.4.1 125.209.94.12 2.4.2 Factotem 2.4.3 Bthebest 2.4.4 ASJ94 2.5 UH-1 Iroquois 2.5.1 Nimbus227 2.5.2 Nigel Ish 3 A-Class review 3.1 Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 3.2 Morotai Mutiny 3.3 Erich Hartmann 3.4 Powered hang glider 3.5 Boeing 737 3.5.1 Bzuk 3.5.2 Nigel Ish 3.6 Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol 3.6.1 Born2flie 3.6.2 Trevor MacInnis 3.7 Chicago Midway International Airport 4 Featured article candidates 5 Featured article review 6 Non-article featured content candidates

[edit] Peer review

[edit] Requests

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Helicopter

Previous peer review

I am resubmitting this article for peer review following some reworking and editing, and allowing time for the article to stabilize for consensus. My intent for my effort is to promote this article as one of the key articles (as well as Autogyro) for the Rotorcraft task force. I appreciate your comments. --Born2flie (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JAS 39 Gripen

I've listed this article for peer review to get comments to help improve article. Maybe improve it to Good Article nomination quality.

Thanks,

Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Born2flie

1. Grammar

   • It seems that there is a lot of changing of the tense of the verbs just within the first few paragraphs of the Development section. Since it all occurred in the past, I think it should all be past tense.
   • "The Gripen got its name in a public competition in 1982." I think it should read something more like, "The JAS 39 received the name Gripen as the result of a public competition in 1982," and it should then lead into the conversation about the Saab heraldry, etc.
   • There are a lot of short paragraphs. I'm sure it is because the treatment of the subject of those paragraphs was so short in the references. It will probably come up during GA-review though. (MOS reference)

   Format

   • The bolding under the Development section for describing the acronym JAS is not required. (MOS reference)
   • If "Attack" is spelled the same in English as it is in Swedish, there should be no italics. (MOS reference)

     I found a dubious reference (a blog) that says the Swedish word for Attack is Attaten. It would be nice to clarify that with a native speaker or someone familiar with the language. I know the Gripen website] states "Attack" as the word represented by the A in JAS. --Born2flie (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

     "Attack" (pronounced [ut-tuck], stress on last syllable) is spelt the same way in Swedish as in English, and has the same meaning (take it from a native Swedish-speaker). Only nuances or specific contexts may differ. It may have a more specific "physical" usage in Swedish; one person attacking another (in English the word "assault" would probably be appropriate here). In sport, the word "anfall" is used more often than "attack". There should be italics on Attack, too. The JAS abbreviation is obviously for three Swedish words, not for one Swedish, one English, and then another Swedish word. In military aviation context, "attack" should translate to "Air-to-Ground" or "Air-to-Surface". "Jakt" (pronounced [yuckt]) - the J - translates to "hunt" or "chase" (rävjakt = foxhunt, biljakt = car chase), in mil-av-speak, though, to "Air-to-Air". LarRan (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

     I yield to the native Swedish speaker. :) --Born2flie (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it again in a couple of days. --Born2flie (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Born. I addressed most of that except for italics on attack and the short paragraphs. I think there needs to be more development info on the aircraft. I've got some books to help with this now. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fnlayson

• Comments: I think the article needs to tell more history of its development. I've tried to add some text on its beginning and will try to add more. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-104 Starfighter

A failed GA which I am sure can make it next time, given a fair review. I have all references available if it is pointed out where they might still be needed. Have also had my neutrality questioned recently and it may appear that I have taken 'possession' of the article due to much work done in there, not so. Would welcome some experienced input/criticism here. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see on the talk page a number of issues pertaining to the failed GA have been addressed, or claimed to have been addressed (I did not review extensively). But the referencing issue has not been. See also Red Sunset's comment at Talk:F-104_Starfighter#Improvements_before_GA_renomination -- a number of sub-sections have no referencing. Fuselage, Engine, Avionics, and Two Seat Trainer, for example. Operational history is generally well sourced but not so much the international service section. Similarly, Flying the F-104 has a few sub-sections that are sparsely cited or not cited. Like the article and love the plane -- good luck! Fletcher (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EasyJet

I've done a large amount of work on this article over the past few days and would appreciate some feedback on the article in general. Specific comments regarding the prose, layout and referencing also welcome.

Thanks,

Wexcan (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 125.209.94.12

I dont like flags in the destinations lists.(125.209.94.12 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Flags have been there for quite a while, not sure who added them or when. Anyone else got any opinions on them? Wexcan (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think because they are on a separate page to the main article the flags are fine. Bthebest (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factotem

First impressions in the time I have available...

• Nice job;
• A few unreferenced paragraphs (e.g. the first two in the controversy section);
• A lot of one sentence paragraphs (e.g. Controversy section, Fleet strategy and aircraft orders, etc). Can these be amalgamated larger and fewer paragraphs?
• Some short sections (e.g. Previously operated, In-Flight Entertainment, possibly even Strategy). Can these be merged into parent/neighbouring sections?
• Section headers should generally be in sentence case (see Manual_of_Style#Article_titles.2C_headings_and_sections);

You might also be interested in No-Frills Carriers: Revolution or Evolution? published by the CAA. Not specifically about easyJet but a useful source for the growth in the low frills industry and, if memory serves me correctly, it does reference easyJet specifically in places. Hope this helps. --FactotEm (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Haven't got round to properly looking at the controversy section yet since it's not as simple as the rest, but will keep your points in mind. Will see what can be done about everything else. Wexcan (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bthebest

Overall, a very good article, very clear and informative. My points:

• The introduction is a bit long. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs probably aren't necessary here.
• As with Factotem, the Strategy section is a bit of a stub and could be merged with History-Business.
• Short sentences in Fleet section are okay on a short term basis as infomation develops, but should be condensed after a while.
• Services section is very good. Bthebest (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ASJ94

I like it, but I agree with Bthebest that the introduction is a bit extensive. I also enjoyed the large amount of pictures. In my opinion, a page can't have enough pictures. ASJ94 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UH-1 Iroquois

Article has had a lot of information added to it and is already rated a B-Class. --Born2flie (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nimbus227

• There is a level three header down the page, 'Design' which has 'aircraft markings' below it, looks a bit orphaned perhaps.

Bibliography header? And reference number two is well used! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Ish

• The Operational History section concentrates on US service in Vietnam and a single operation in Lebanon- it could really do with more for other users, some of which have been used in active wars etc.
• The photos also look a bit messy - perhaps a gallery might be helpful??

Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

The article is an example to all airline articles. It provides up-to-date, factual data that flows smoothly into the article. The terminal descriptions and airport history sections are in-depth, and the airline destinations are constantly updated providing a greater experience to the article. Currently, it is rated GA-Class, but the content definately boasts A-Class material. On behalf of User:Golich17. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morotai Mutiny

Has passed the WPMILHIST A-class review, is well referenced and comprehensive. Only needs a few minor improvements to qualify for FAC. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erich Hartmann

The article has passed A-class in the WikiProject Military history. It should qualify here as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks great, I'd even vote for it in an FAC. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Powered hang glider

Powered hang glider is a nicely referenced article. It is currently rated as B-class and has matured a lot in the last year and now it seems to meet A-class criteria. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing 737

Per my previous recommendation during the Peer review of this article, I recommend that Boeing 737 be reviewed for A-Class status. --Born2flie (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bzuk

One other thing I have noted is that are at least two fact tags that have to be addressed before the FA Review.

– FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. --Born2flie (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Nigel Ish

• The lead section is probably a little short.

• Some of the sections have few cites - particularly the "Design description" and 737-800 and -900 in "Variants".

• Incidents - this only covers the recent ones, should it cover the most natable accidents from the whole life of the aircraft? For example, possibly Kegworth air disaster as it resulted in grounding of 100 aircraft. In addition , the photo shown in the section is of an accident which isn't discussed in the article.

• References:
  • References to Boeing's website should be consistent - currently sometimes Boeing, sometimes Boeing.com, sometimes the Boeing Company and sometimes Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
  • Is b737.co.uk a WP:RS? (this will get asked if this gets as far as FAC.

Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

Self-nominator: I believe this article exemplifies the great work of WP. Although it did not pass FAC, it did fairly well (see the archive). I believe that there are no gaping holes, only minor adjustments, to bring this article to FA status. Codharris (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Born2flie

Currently the article meets GA-Class criteria, which exceeds A-Class criteria in the order. I don't think this article needs to be reviewed for A-Class. If it is ever delisted from GA-Class, A-Class would certainly be warranted in the article's current state. --Born2flie (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I had misunderstood A-Class to be a lower quality than GA-Class in WP:Aviation's scheme. I will ask to add some comments that were made in another discussion and then review further, later. --Born2flie (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor MacInnis

Support - Looks great. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Midway International Airport

Chicago Midway International Airport is a well written, nicely referenced article. It is currently GA-class but seems to meet A-class Criteria. Obviously these many reasons are why I nominated this article for A-class review. Marcusmax 16:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Couldn't get through the lede. Are we sure this is a GA-class article? --Born2flie (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidates

[edit] Featured article review

[edit] Non-article featured content candidates