Talk:Helwan HA-300/GA1

GA Review

You have good references, all of your pictures seem to be freely available, so that's all good. I think some of the language might be spruced up a little bit, like "There were 3 prototypes built until the termination of the project at the end of 1969, due to lack of finance and pressure from Russia." -- change "until" to "before". "afterburning rating of 4800kgp.[3]India also" -- add a space before India after the reference. More things could have wikilinks the first time they're mentioned, like years, months, Mach, country names. So, there are some tiny things to fix up, but otherwise I think the article is good. Banaticus (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again and I completed the task more critique is welcomeDiaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

A few suggestions for improvement so the article will be able clear GA and A-class reviews, and maybe even FA:

• Expand the intro to at least two paragraphs, preferably three if at all possible.
• See if you can add any additional information about the project; its a small article, so adding relevent information and expanding sections to the best of your ability will help your chance for improvement.
• Source the specifications section, this kind of material requires sourcing so as to comply with the milhist MoS.
• Check your internet sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, some of them seem a little iffy for long term use, so the sooner you know for sure whether they can stay the better.

Beyond these points everything looks good to go, although I may add a few comments later after I eat (its dinner time here). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the milhist MoS and where's the reliable sources noticeboard? Thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The milhist MoS is the Military History Manual of Style, and here is the reliable sources noticeboard! Chrisfow (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Diaa abdelmoneim, you have done a very commendable job raising this article from a stub! Egypt’s aviation endeavors are poorly known and this will be a good step toward making more information available. It still has a way to go to achieve GA status, though, and I concur with TomStar81 that what it most needs is some expansion on coverage; stylistically, it’s in pretty good shape. Specific information that might be added or expanded upon are

• The Spanish phase of the HA-300’s design and development, including Messerschmitt’s role in initiating the program, and why the Spanish grew disenchanted with it.
• How the Egyptian government became interested in it (in lieu of other options), how it fit into its plans to develop an indigenous aviation industry (through the Egyptian General Aero Organization), and what notable individuals were associated with the design program.
• How the Indians became involved and the source of the confusion over whether the Egyptians were committing to the HF-24.
• A general description of the design, including pointing out what innovations the aircraft featured.
• How the first prototype performed in flight.

Hope these suggestions are of value. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Stilted grammer

Some of the sections are a little stilted (stiff and artificially formal) and could be reworked. Take this sentence, for instance:

The test flight for the glider, being towed by an He-111, wasn't completed due to instability and the airplane didn't even get airborne.

The mention of the He-111 towing the glider breaks the flow of the sentence. It would be better to rework that into something like:

Towed by an He-111, the test flight for the glider wasn't completed due to instability and the airplane didn't even get airborne."

This version uses the common American colloquialism "never got off the ground", which means the probject was never completed. It's somewhat of a pun here and it which makes the sentence flow a little more smoothly:

Originally planned to be towed by an He-111, the test flight for the glider never got off the ground, due to instability problems.

Although I'm not particularly happy with the first dependant clause there, by suggesting that they'd planned to have an He-111 tow the glider, instead of saying that it was towed by it, we avoid the problem of "How was the glider towed by an He-111 if it never even got off the ground?" If the glider was actually towed around on the runways, is there any more information on what happened during the towing? So let's see if we can't rephrase it a little more, like:

Messerschmitt planned to have an He-111 tow the glider but, due to instability problems, the test flight for the glider never got off the ground.

That'd be good, or something like that. ;)Banaticus (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

citations and coverage

There are several fact tags that need to be covered with cites and one online source needs a telling name and a date of retrieval.

The coverage is not complete. Go for Kurt Tank. He was involved with fighter designs in India, Egypt and Argentinia and in Egypt special airbase was established for this fighter. These designs were based on German designs during WWII because of the limited test capabilities in these countries. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

added the citations --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): (Kurt Tank and his crew are missing, not OR in the strict sense but it is like telling about American aircraft pioneers and not mentioning the Wright brother)

   • References needed:

   a (major aspects): (all technical data needs cites) b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: