Talk:Republic XP-69

The re-direct here is in errfor as the article it directs to does not describe the XP-69.Petebutt (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure it does. The "Design and development" section describes how the XP-69 was a parrallel design that was cancelled in favour of the XP-72. Also, blanking a page is not the proper way to "delete" it. This should have been taken to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion or WT:AVIATION. I'm going to revert your blanking for now, if you still want the page to be deleted you can let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Republic XP-69 wind tunnel model

• ... that the proposed Republic XP-69 fighter (model pictured) was to be powered by a liquid-cooled radial engine? Source: "Republic Aircraft Corporation, drew up plans for a new escort fighter built around the proposed 2350-hp Wright R-2160 Tornado... – ...It was a oddity in that it was a LIQUID-cooled radial engine." (http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p69.html)
  • ALT1:... that a liquid-cooled radial engine was the proposed powerplant of the Republic XP-69 fighter (model pictured)? Source: "Republic Aircraft Corporation, drew up plans for a new escort fighter built around the proposed 2350-hp Wright R-2160 Tornado... – ...It was a oddity in that it was a LIQUID-cooled radial engine." (http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p69.html)

Converted from a redirect by ZLEA (talk). Self-nominated at 02:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

• I am concerned about the reliability of [www.joebaugher.com www.joebaugher.com], which is the cited source. While it cites its own sources, from first glance it appears to be a personal blog of some kind. Assuming no QPQ is required, this otherwise meets the requirements. CMD (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis Joe Baugher is one of the top aviation authors and researchers. Though his website may look like a poorly constructed blog, the information on it is well researched and even used for research by many other aviation authors. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the website is a poorly constructed blog with excellent looking information. However, I don't know if that information qualifies it as an RS. Has the website been discussed at WP:RS/N or elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding its reliability? CMD (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps MilborneOne would know. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth inquiring at WP:WikiProject Aircraft or WP:WikiProject Military history? CMD (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've brought it up here. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• The consensus of the discussion is that it isn't a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@ZLEA, Chipmunkdavis, and SL93: For what it's worth, speaking as someone with an interest in aviation, the hook as proposed is a bit niche since the significance of this engine choice isn't clear, and in any case the plane was far from the only aircraft to use a radial engine. Perhaps a different angle could be used here? One option could be to mention that the engines were actually the reason for its cancellation, or perhaps something about it being designed as part of a contest could work.

ALT2 ... that the Republic XP-69 (model pictured) was canceled due to development problems with its liquid-cooled radial engine?

ALT3 ... that the Republic XP-69 (model pictured) was developed as a response to a United States Army Air Corps competition for unorthodox fighter designs?

Of course, regardless of what hook is to be used, the sourcing issue will still need to be addressed.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis SL93 Narutolovehinata5 What about this source? It's still a blog but its content is reliably sourced. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliability for Wikipedia purposes doesn't follow on like that. The books themselves look good, but the most I'm finding online is snippet view. CMD (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are unable to get your hands on one of the books, perhaps someone at the resource exchange may be able to? CMD (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis SL93 Narutolovehinata5 I now have one of the sources used in the blog, U.S. Experimental & Prototype Aircraft Projects: Fighters 1939-1945 by Bill Norton (ISBN 1-580-07109-0). I can email you the document I got from resource exchange if you want. For the record I think it would go best with ALT2. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ZLEA I would be willing to just assume good faith about you having the source. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also offering a third option which combines ALT2 and ALT3 in order to provide additional context for unfamiliar readers, although I'm not sure if reviewers will like it due to length (193 characters when including "(model pictured)", 176 characters without):

ALT4 ... that the Republic XP-69 (model pictured), developed as a response to a competition for unorthodox fighter designs, was canceled due to development problems with its liquid-cooled radial engine?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's great to see a successful resource exchange. I am also happy to assume good faith, but if you're concerned you can always use the |quote= attribute in citation templates. ZLEA, any opinion on ALT4? For the purposes of DYK, please duplicate the reference for each sentence relevant to the hook, even if they are immediately subsequent sentences (eg. the last two sentences of development for ALT2). CMD (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis The source does not mention the competition, so I still think ALT2 is the way to go. The source says, "...but by early 1943 it was evident the problems with the engine would not soon be overcome. The Tornado was dropped with none of the 11 engines on contract ever flown. ... Consequently, the XP-69 was cancelled on 24 May 1943..." - ZLEA _T\^C 16:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

ALT2. CMD (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that the Republic XP-69 (model pictured) was canceled due to development problems with its liquid-cooled radial engine?