Talk:1952 Farnborough Airshow crash/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 17:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and concise, and English spelling is maintained throughout. No grammar issues found.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Minor issue with the lead section, which should summarize the article. The 2015 Shoreham Airshow Crash is mentioned in the lead, but mentioned nowhere else in the article. The lead section is short, but not out of line with the overall length of the article. Paragraphs 2 and 3 may optionally be combined into one paragraph to leave fewer extremely short one-sentence paragraphs in the article. No fiction, layout, WTW, or list issues found in the article. Second review 11 Oct: Improvements made to lead section, concerns addressed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Inline citations to reliable sources are provided. I believe the references for the two "On This Day" BBC sources have an incorrect date as those web pages were certainly not created in 1952. Second review 11 Oct: Citations fixed, no further issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No problems with the quality of sources used in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Citation needed tag from September 2020 at the end of the first paragraph of the "Breakup" section. Actually, it was added by the nominator, who mentioned in the edit summary at the time, "it seems the forces of unsourced darkness have been at work". Not actually sure whether I should list this as a category 2b issue or a category 2c issue, but I'll just park it here since the other aspects of 2b look fine. Second review 11 Oct: Citation needed tag removed, additional content added. Concern addressed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Spot checking several of the references that I could access I found no instances of close paraphrasing or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The description of the results of the investigation into the cause of the breakup seems insufficient. It is only one sentence, and I don't even know what a faulty D-nose leading edge arrangement is. The de Havilland Sea Vixen article goes into greater detail and paints a more complete picture of what caused the accident than this article presently does. Can you describe the cause of the accident in easy-to-understand language that doesn't require the reader to click through to other articles to understand jargon, etc.? Second review 11 Oct: Great expansion of the investigation section really increased understanding.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused on the subject matter without diving into excessive detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality issues that I have seen. If there have been any heavily contested aspects of the investigation, they aren't mentioned in the article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Only mild cosmetic edits and vandalism reverts since 2020.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image, located on Commons, plausibly tagged as public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One illustration, with caption, of the prototype aircraft involved.
	7. Overall assessment.	A couple of minor issues to address, I will put this on hold for a few days. Second review 11 Oct: Standards met, passing.

Some additional suggestions, that are not part of the GA Criteria and will not affect the promotion of the article whether they are addressed or not:

• Some false precision in some of the metric-to-US conversions in the final paragraph.
• The article could probably benefit from more details about the pilots. John Denny is wikilinked in the opening paragraph but apparently he was quite a celebrity in the UK from being the first UK pilot to break the sound barrier. I believe at least a couple of the anecdotes in the "crowd parted like the Red Sea" BBC article mentioned the star appeal of going to see Denny.
• Same with the aircraft itself. The article calls it a prototype which makes it seem new and experimental, maybe even a bit untested, but one of the references I checked, I think it was the Flight and Aircraft Engineer reference, had more details about the more than a hundred hours of test flights that the aircraft had undergone, including many supersonic transitions.
• A couple of instances of overlinking that someone might come along an nitpick about, like needlessly linking to air shows and United Kingdom military aircraft serial numbers

That's all I have for now, thanks for the work on the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man - Let me know if you want to come back to this article, or whether I should decline for now. If you need more time, I'm fine with that, just let me know when you think you'll be able to come back to it. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes, apologies for the delay. I've finally got round to locating some helpful sources for this so I'll aim to get to it some time over the weekend if that's ok. Cheers, and thanks for the comprehensive review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

RecycledPixels hi, and thanks for your patience. I believe I've gone some way to addressing your concerns, could you let me know what you think so far and if anything else is needed to get it over the GA line? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

RecycledPixels any update here? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man - Sorry about that, I've had some things going on on my end; now I'm back and trying to get caught up with things, so I'll get this wrapped up in the next couple of days. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. Took longer than I intended but I finally got some uninterrupted time to go through this again. Great changes, especially the investigation section which explains things much better. All issues addressed, GA Pass, nice job. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)