Talk:Slingsby Skylark 2

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the gliding project.

Improving the Skylark 2 page

I edited the Skylark 2 page but the edits have been rolled back. I want to point out that this is my first edit, it was not complete and the editor concerned has not had the grace to leave me a comment. I am working on this entry with an old friend. Both of us were glider pilots in the 1960s and 70s and have worked in aviation. I worked for a glider repairer and I'm the son of the aircraft engineer who modified the Skylark 2 to create the 2c, competition number 33, which is shown in the entry. As it stands, the entry contains a number of errors, including the fact that it is illustrated by an incorrect photograph. Our intention is to insert two more photographs, so that all three versions of the glider (2, 2b and 2c) are illustrated, and clarify the differences between them. We will insert references as far as we are able. I hope we will be allowed to continue with this work.Mdcorrick (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to discuss text before removing it, especially when it is unsourced and largely unencyclopedic in nature, reading more like a personal blog entry than an encyclopedia entry. The history's edit summary provides reasons why this was removed. All text entered in articles has to be referenced to a reliable published source, you can't cite things like "(Information from K R Brown, former syndicate member, 7/03/2013)" as that is original research. Please have a read though those links I have provided and by all means have another go at it, but this time please source your text to a proper reliable and verifiable reference, not a friend's reminiscences. If you want to recover your text to work on it, you can find it in the article's history. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]