Talk:ABC Wasp

---

Slapsnot (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer 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.

---

Born2flie

Peer review (see here for criteria)

---

Peer review, as requested on WP:Aviation's Peer review. Conducted on 29 December 2008.

1. Prose

   a. well written: b. comprehensive: c. factually accurate: d. summary style:

   • first sentence contains awkward reference to indirect object, the engineer. Possibly rewrite the sentence to not include the awkward reference to previous employment.
   • short article, closer to Start-Class as it does not adequately cover the development of the engine, such as the impetus for beginning the development and the reasons for ceasing development.
   • rewrite "noteworthiness" out of the article. Article does not need to express noteworthiness or notability. Notability becomes evident with the information in the article and the sources included.

2. References

   a. use of inline citations: b. reliable sources: c. No original research:

3. Style

   a. lead section: b. appropriate structure: c. conforms to WP:MOS:

   • no lead section, probably due to lack of coverage of subject.
   • using the aircraft template for See also introduces "Comparable aircraft" rather than "Comparable engines".
   • structure used complies with MOS.

4. Controversy

   a. neutral point of view: b. stable, with no edit wars:

5. Graphics

   a. quality: b. image licenses:

   Consider moving the image to the See also section and left-aligning the image to break up the image with the infobox.

6. Quality:

   Article classification:

   Start-Class. Not really comprehensive enough to be a B-Class, but it has all the required characteristics. {{WPAVIATION}} banner will classify it as a C-Class when evaluated by the B-Class checklist. --Born2flie (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (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.

Comment

• The text is a copy of [1] with phrases added, even if that is public domain text it should ideally be rearranged so as not to look so obvious.
• The power-to-weight ratio is expressed backwards. At 0.6 hp/lb it is not remarkable and 'not the best to date'.
• 'Guy Motors' should be red linked as should 'Star' (whoever they were).
• The preceding engine, the ABC Mosquito, used copper plated cylinders, as did their earlier engines. So not necessarily the 'first'.
• 56 engines were delivered and powered five different types of aircraft, I would question the use of 'experimental'.
• These 56 engines were built by six different contractors, I have no record in my references of any being built by ABC themselves so the statement 'primarily built by ABC' would appear to be incorrect.
• The extra image is causing white space problems.
• There was a Mark II Wasp with enlarged bore and stroke, not mentioned.

I can improve this article and would concur that it is not yet 'B' class standard. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the assessment Born2flie and Nimbus. Ill look into it when I have some time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapsnot (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome, give me a shout if you need any engine info, I can't guarantee I will have it but I have a fair collection of books mostly bought this year to help with the aircraft engine articles. There is an aircraft engine project page at WP:AIRENG and discussion at WT:AIRENG which was started very recently. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ABC Wasp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080608024633/http://www.oldrhinebeck.org:80/collection/engines/ABC%20Wasp.htm to http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/collection/engines/ABC%20Wasp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ABC Wasp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601141943/http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/planes/components.htm to http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/planes/components.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)