Talk:Supermarine Swan

Supermarine Swan has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 27, 2023. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Supermarine Swan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly there - placed on hold for some copyedits and an image license issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Supermarine Swan behind Supermarine staff during the visit to Southampton of the Prince of Wales (June 1924).jpg is not appropriately licensed - there is no evidence that the image is actually under a Creative Commons license.

Licencing information amended, I believe the photograph is acceptable due to its age. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reconnaissance/Passenger should not be capitalized.

Sorted. AM

The Supermarine Southampton seems to be a successor, not a variant.

Done. AM

Several run-on sentences that need correction, most notably The Supermarine Swan was a wooden biplane...

Sorted. AM

Add the 's to artist's impression

Done. AM

"was retracted more speedily: more speedily than what?

Now clarified. AM

His proposals were not taken up...: perhaps clarify that the Southampton was derived from the Swan.

Done. AM

The date of 9 June is given in two different sentences - once as the loan date, the other as entering service. I would recommend rewording these sentences to clarify the order of events - were the loan and entering service separate events, or one and the same?

They were the same thing, text amended to avoid potential confusion.Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given there were only two operators, the "Operators" section seems superfluous.

Agreed. Section cut (WP:AIRMOS allows editorial scope here). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that any of the "See also" section is needed. Certainly the first three links should be removed per MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN, and I don't see how a list of all flying boats ever made is particularly relevant. That's what categories are for.

Agreed. The section is a fairly common feature of aircraft articles, but its inclusion isn't universal. Text now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Parliament" is misspelled in source 11.

Done. AM

Well-written
Verifiable with no original research
Broad in its coverage
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated

@Pi.1415926535: above comments hopefully now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: Almost there - I just have one more comment. This sentence is confusing: Under contract from the Air Ministry, the Swan returned by Imperial Airways on 8 March the following year. Was the operation of the Swan under contract, or was the return date specifically under the contract? I assume it was returned Imperial Airways? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious that the date of return was part of the contract, and it cannot be be assumed. Hope the text is now clearer.Amitchell125 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, happy to pass now. Good work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]