Talk:General Aircraft Hotspur/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally or maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion[edit]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

I have a problem that relates to the article's lead: It doesn't seem to actually talk about the glider itself at all, only a broad comment on its inception and a brief sentence on its use. Try to explain a bit further what the intentions of its designers were, specifications for the aircraft and explain what the limitations with its design were (essentially it seems that they were too small). Try to make another full paragraph out of it.

Response: Good point although the lede is not intended to do anything other than give a summary or brief overview. The mention of background actually takes up a great deal of the following passages/sections. FWiW, I will alter the paragraph(s). Does it really need two paragrapsh for what is essentually a minor topic/subject? Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think two paragraphs would be good - its not the relative importance of the subject that determines the size of the lead, but whether or not the lead adequately summarises the article, which in this case it doesn't. It isn't that what is in the lead is wrong, its just that there is relevant information which should appear there but is absent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Hotspur was intended to have an operational range of 100 miles (160 km), although in practice this was reduced to 100 miles (160 km) when released from a height of 20,000 feet (6,100 m)." - This doesn't quite make sense, although I think I know what you mean. Can you clarify? Yes. Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the survivors section, is that the only surviving example? Nope, I will add to the section.

Good, although is the link to Duxford correct? Don't you want Imperial War Museum Duxford?

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Other comments[edit]

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

I'm not convinced that its worthwhile linking Squadron Leader and Major and would suggest delinking them.
Consider breaking up the Development section using secondary headings - at the moment it is quite a big chunk of text.

Good work, but I have a question (and for the moment this is an essential rather than an optional thing): firstly, did you intend first level (==) or second level (===) headings here? I think further development could use conversion into a third level heading to follow the Design section. Secondly, the Production section is tiny and I think would be better off merging with the further development or design sections above it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still prefer "Production" to be merged into the rest of the design section, but it's no longer essential.

"An average of eight to 11 flights" - either numerals or words for numbers, but I don't recommend mixing them up in a sentence.

Good points; as to the last, typically numerals are written out as words, zero to nine and as numbers beyond, it is albeit clumsy looking but actually "good form". At present, the development section can use a set of sub-sections. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm aware of the convention on numbers, but am suggesting that you ignore it for that sentence as I feel it looks odd. Its not essential however and I leave it up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have to admit I overlooked this (been a bit overworked recently). It is now ready for GA, congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]