Template:Did you know nominations/Boeing RC-1
- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Boeing RC-1
[edit]- ... that the Boeing RC-1, designed to haul ore and oil out of the Arctic, would have been twice the size and weight of the largest aircraft ever built?
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 12:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC).
Meets length and creation date requirements. However I just have a few comments and questions (I'm no aviation expert so these could be just my misunderstandings):
- In the hook, I would recommend linking "the largest aircraft ever built" to Antonov An-225 Mriya, and capitalizing "Arctic".
- In the article, there is a note explaining the claim of the RC-1 carrying 5 times the load, but no reference—do you have a citation (preferably online) for this claim? In addition to referencing this, the note might need to clarify this a bit more: from my calculation based on the note and the cargo details in the Mriya article (only the MTOW of the Mriya is mentioned in the note), it's more like four times the cargo load (2.3/0.55 = 4.18). Have I missed something?
- The note in the article says "the RC-1 was 3.55 million points MTOW", should that be "pounds MTOW"?
- --Canley (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
All fixed. I've declined the link simply because the aircraft itself is linked in the same place. The load issue is due to a missing variable - fuel. Records are set with a minimal fuel load to increase cargo, whereas the RC-1's number is for a production haul. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Ohhh, sorry, you were talking about the hook! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah! Thanks for fixing and checking those points, that makes sense about the fuel load, I thought it might be something like that. Still no reference cited for the five times the cargo claim though—I had a look at the online references and couldn't find anything that confirmed this. Can assume good faith if it is in an offline reference, so if you have one can you include it? --Canley (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah the five times is going to have to change… ok, try this version! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- A quid pro quo (QPQ) review is required for this nomination to be approved, in addition to the other issues mentioned above. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Done, Bryan Lathrop. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Bryan Lathrop, Maury. However, a bit more is needed: rather than "everything checks out", please specify what you checked beyond the hook fact being sourced (i.e., size, age, neutrality, close paraphrasing, etc.); also, the review should be started by one of the five icons shown in the editing page above the edit window; if an approval, then one of the two ticks. Many thanks, and glad to see the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I checked everything on the list. And I put the check box too. But an anon removed it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- It takes maybe two minutes to fully specify what you reviewed on the nomination template (not here, but on the Lathrop). This isn't just for me; it's for anyone who wants to see what was reviewed, including the people who will ultimately promote the hook to prep and promote the set to a queue: it's easier to follow the steps and do spot checks when the review lists what was checked in the first place. The instructions on the DYK template talk page are pretty clear (T:TDYK#How to review a nomination), and the example reasonably complete; it also requests that the icon be listed first to begin of the review. Among other things, this means the icon appears at the start of a signed review; your later icon addition was at the bottom on its own line, unindented and unsigned, so it looked like a mistake, which might be why it was removed. Please try again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I supplemented Maury's comments on that QPQ review, so as to get the requirement out of the way. Regarding this article, I find that several passages in the article don't have inline citations (3rd paragraph in "Early concepts", 1st and last paragraphs in "Design"). A few more footnotes are needed to finish this up. --Orlady (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. The remaining is an introductory summary. 00:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs)
- Apparently, people have been expecting that because I commented here earlier, I am now obligated to follow the review to its completion. (Please note: this review is not and never was a QPQ review.)
- The citation problem is mostly fixed, but not completely. There are still two unsourced paragraphs, both of which are exactly one sentence long. I can let one of them go, as it's clearly connected to the following paragraph that has a source. However, I am bothered by the unsourced one-sentence paragraph at the end of the article (it reads "Empty weight was 985,000 lbs, making it the heaviest aircraft by far, almost matching the fully loaded weight of the Ant-225"). As a reader who is not an expert on aircraft but found the hook interesting, I expect the article to give me some clue as to the basis for that comparison. I actually can find the empty weight in the table of specifications (which is sourced), but I can't tell where the comparative details about the other plane come from. Furthermore, I don't think encyclopedia readers ought to be expected to know the meaning of the shorthand "Ant-225" (presumably this is the Antonov An-225 Mriya that the lead paragraph refers to). I also note that the weight of the Antonov considered in this comparison is not indicated in this article, and because the Antonov article does not use the "fully loaded weight" terminology, readers would have a hard time replicating the comparison. --Orlady (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this last addition here. The line in question at the bottom appears to be editing cruft, and I'm not sure it adds to the article, but I expanded, did apples-to-apples, and cited.
