Talk:Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kyteto (talk · contribs) 21:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 22:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Starting review...

I'm not seeing anything that makes me think any of WP:GAFAIL apply.

Images

• File:Aerospatiale SA 330J Puma, Spain - Air Force J(cropped).jpg appears to be mis-licensed. It's a crop from File:Aerospatiale SA 330J Puma, Spain - Air Force JP6845556.jpg which is GFDL, so the derived image must also use the same license.
• File:SAAF-Puma-005.jpg The exif data says "© Leoa's Photography", but it's claimed as "Own work", so something doesn't jive.

The uploading user, [[1]], claims that Leoa's Photography is their own website. Should I interrogate them or pursue an internet register check? Kyteto (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please. One way or another this needs to get sorted. RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:Images says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative, They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding ... and too many can be distracting. There's a lot of photos of essentially the same aircraft. Are these all really needed to aid the reader's understanding, or is this really just a gallery of aircraft pictures for decorative purposes?

I will remove a few, particularly the problematic one you've identified.

Source spot-check

Picking 10% of the citations to check:

>>> sorted(random.choices(list(range(1, 134)), k=13))
[10, 51, 62, 74, 77, 85, 89, 94, 109, 109, 110, 122, 123]

• Indonesia also undertook domestic manufacturing of the SA 330. [ [10]

(10) Waldron, Greg (8 July 2011). "Eurocopter renews Indonesia partnership". FlightGlobal.

Verified

• In 1969, Portugal emerged as an early export customer for the Puma, ordering 12 of the helicopters for the Portuguese Air Force ; Portugal would also be the first country to employ the Pumas in combat operations during the Portuguese Colonial War ; the type was used operationally to complement the smaller Alouette III helicopter fleet during the Angola and Mozambican wars of independence , the type had the advantages of greater autonomy and transport capacity over other operated helicopters. [ [51]

(51) Bosgra and Krimpen 1972, pp. 27–32.

I can't find a copy of this, so please send me a PDF of the relevant pages. Also, the citation is lacking. What is "Angola Comité". Is that a real publisher? Is this self-published or a vanity press?

The best summary of what the Angola Comité is/was is [2]; it was an anti-apartheid movement that worked with Amnesty International, amongst other organisations, and frequently published material, from simple posters to detailed written works, on the situation and events thereof, such as the conflict between Portugal and portions of its empire seeking independence. I'm not sure I can legally reproduce their work, however, I'll try to find a link. Kyteto (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think this is not a WP:RS. I've found a few used booksellers that carry the book, but they all have minimal information, which generally makes me suspicious. The National Library of Australia has a non-circulating copy. What really convinces me that it's not a RS is that https://africanactivist.msu.edu/organization/210-813-693/ says Bosgra was a leader of the Angola Comité, which would make this a WP:SPS.

• The first two Pumas for the Royal Air Force were delivered on 29 January 1971, [ [62]

(62) "World News" Archived 2013-05-16 at the Wayback Machine. Flight International, Vol. 99, No. 3230, 4 February 1971, p. 144.

Verified in (63)

• In 2002, six ex-South African SA 330L were purchased by Britain to extend the type's service life. [ [74]

(74) Penney Flight International 26 November – 2 December 2002, p. 74.

Your other citations to Flight International include a URL, can you add that to this one so I can find it?

This is a citation to a physical print source, and not one that I have. I am trying and failing to find an online citation; not aided by Flight International previously losing their mind over Wikipedia and destroying access to their archives... Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

hansard alternative source found, now added to article. Kyteto (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• this was subsequently cut to 22, [ [77]

(77) "Upgraded Puma HC2 to enter final flight test phase." Archived 2012-09-20 at the Wayback Machine Flightglobal, 11 July 2012. Retrieved: 29 August 2012.

This is behind a paywall (as is the archive.org version). Please send me a copy so I can verify it.

The archive.org link loads fine for me, I haven't paid them for access or logged in, can you try again please? Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure what happened the first time, but I've got it now. Verified. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• the type took over the duties of Bristow's retiring Westland Wessex helicopters in 1981. [ [85]

(85) "Air Crash Firm Scraps 'Risky' Helicopter Fleet". The Herald. Newsquest. 10 November 1981. p. 1.

I can't find this, please send me a copy.

I cannot find this either. Seems to be an offline physical source. Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Initial production version for the French Army Light Aviation. Powered by 884 kW (1,185 hp) Turbomeca Turmo IIIC4 engines. 132 purchased by France.[89]

(89) Lake 2001, p. 101.

I cannot find this, please send me a copy.

I don't own a copy. Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Verified

• Prototype with "fenestron" tail rotor.[94]

(94) Lake 2001, p. 106.

I cannot find this, please send me a copy.

I don't own a copy. Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Verified

• Argentine Coast Guard[109]

(109) "World Air Forces 1987 pg. 40". Flightglobal Insight. 2019. Archived from the original on 1 January 2018. Retrieved 5 January 2019.

This verifies that they had one at one time, but doesn't support the "former operator" claim.

• Gendarmerie[110]

(110) "World Air Forces 1987 pg. 42". flightglobal.com. Archived from the original on 21 January 2019. Retrieved 5 January 2019.

This verifies that they had one at one time, but doesn't support the "former operator" claim.

• South African Air Force[122]

(122) "World Air Forces 1987 pg. 84". flightglobal.com. Archived from the original on 16 May 2013. Retrieved 1 April 2013.

This verifies that they had one at one time, but doesn't support the "former operator" claim.

• Togolese Air Force[123]

(123) ""World's Air Forces." Archived 2012-10-24 at the Wayback Machine Flight International, 5–11 December 1990, p. 76

This verifies that they had one at one time, but doesn't support the "former operator" claim.

(gotta run now, I'll pick this up later) RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've finished my spot-checks. There's some sources I noted above that I could not access, so please send me a scan, PDF, etc (or a link to someplace I can find them on-line is fine). You can email that via the link on my user page. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kyteto just want to make sure you've seen this. RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

tangential discussion hidden

So for this article to become a GA editors are required to violate copyright? I originally added this reference, but if offline sources are not permitted then this has serious implications about the viability of the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC) As I said on my talk page, WP:GAN/I#R3 requires that I spot-check references. Since I don't have direct access to the source, I'm asking for a copy so I can complete my review. This is not a copyright violation; copyright law has always recognized performing reviews as fair use. See for example, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html: Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1986 (17 U.S. Code § 107) states that fair use of copyrighted material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." . The review I need to perform certainly fits that definition. RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC) As the editor who originally added the one of the references, I am not prepared to take steps that I consider to be a breach of copyright - there is certainly enough pages of Lake that are cited that copying all of them would breach what is allowable under Fair Dealing (not all editors are only subject to US copyright laws UK rules are not the same). If the process prohibits offline sources, and enforces ownership of the article, then you might as well delete it - the vast majority of the sources are print sources, and if they cannot be trusted, and the editors who added them cannot be trusted, then there will be little left - certainly not anything that would count as a "Good Article" by any sensible measure of the term. If the article needs to be gutted to satisfy the GA process than the process is broken, and I would want no part of the articleNigel Ish (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC) @Nigel Ish, looking at the list above, only two pages of Lake are being requested. That's well within the boundaries of UK copyright law. You're not being asked to publish the pages - you can simply send a photograph or scan of them to the reviewer by email. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I must acknowledge that I am not based in the US, and cannot count that if I do end up having legal action taken against me that it'll only be US law that will be applicable. I'm frankly a little scared to circumvent paywalls. I will do what searches I can to find live sources for sought material. Kyteto (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've been on the road for a few days and just got back last night, so I'm catching up on things. I had a generous offer from another editor (they can self-identify if they want) to track down the Lake source for me, and it just this moment popped up in my inbox, so I'll be able to work on that tonight. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kyteto I had placed this on 7-day hold on October 4. That was 11 days ago. There's still a bunch of outstanding items that need to be resolved. Will you be able to wrap this up in the next day or two? RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I can make progress without either diminishing the quality of the article or risking legal action again myself. I've responded to some items, but others... Kyteto (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, but I'm going to have to close this then. RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not 'Airbus Helicopters'

First, the history lesson; Aérospatiale morphed into Eurocopter who then became Airbus Helicopters. Eurocopter and Airbus developed and built the AS332 Super Puma, AS532 Cougar, and other spin-offs. It was only Aérospatiale, IAR and Westland who built the SA.330 Puma. Oh, and Atlas in South Africa who absolutely did not get any help from Aérospatiale. Not one bit. No sir!

So why do we have; Variants / Versions by other manufacturers:

• Westland Puma HC Mk 1
• Airbus Helicopters Puma HC.Mk 2

It was Eurocopter that thoroughly brought the old Pumas up to spec with new engines and a glass cockpit back in 2012. But I guess it is Airbus Helicopters who currently hold the Type certificate.

The only reference to support this choice of name is from the RAF themselves, but they are very much 'in bed' with Airbus Helicopters, and might also want to suggest that this equipment is brand-spanking new, so forgive me if I suggest they have a COI here. But you will have to dig deep for that detail; mostly they fudge the issue and simply call it 'Puma HC.2'.

Janes Information Services, who know a thing or two, describe the RAF's newer version as;

• Westland-Aerospatiale SA 330E Puma HC2

https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/defence/uk-could-extend-puma-to-mitigate-delays-to-nmh-replacement-plan

I think Jane's (or Janes - take your pick) covers the situation perfectly enough, otherwise we could end up with a Boeing DC-3 (Boeing having taken over McDonnell-Douglas, who took over...). Nah!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)