Talk:Gallaudet D-2/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. simongraham (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The article is of reasonable length, with 1,427 words of readable prose.
• The lead is a short length at 86 words. I suggest adding one or two more sentences. This could help avoid discrepancies between it and the body. For example, in the body it is noted that the D-2 differed from the D-1 in having ailerons on the upper wing. In contrast, in the lead it states the differences as "more powerful engines and had other improvements". More later.
  • I rather thought that the "other improvements" covered the change in the ailerons--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• 99.6% of authorship is by Sturmvogel 66.
• It is currently assessed as a Start class article.
• There is no evidence of edit wars.
• The layout is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox.
• Earwig gives a 0.0% chance of copyright violation, which is a remarkable achievement.
• The text seems clear and neutral.
• The Specifications are sourced and seem comprehensive.
• There seem to be no duplicate or superfluous links.
• The infobox image seems appropriate and relevant and has an appropriate PD tag.
• WP:AGF for the offline sources.
• The text does seem to go into a lot of detail on what seems to be a very short life. I suggest it could be edited down somewhat or it risks contravening WP:SS.
• On the other hand, I found the fact that the crash caused McGee to be the first aircraft fatality in Rhode Island (according to the online source) worthy of note, and a potential DYK. I suggest adding it to the lead and body and then submitting.

Some suggestions to improve the grammar and spelling:

• Suggest placing a comma before "and" and after "The engine bay had aluminum sheets all around" as these are independent rather than dependant clauses.
• Similarly after tubing in "The wing spars were steel tubing and", "forward electric generator was deleted and", "weather there was no better than that further north and" "crankshafts failed and" and "loan of an engine on 28 November and" etc.
• Suggest comma after "On 21 November".
• Suggest changing which to that in "into the water which caused".
  • "That" doesn't make any sense to me in the sentence as written.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    • In which case, consider a comma before which. simongraham (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Review

• The article is very close to WP:GA. In my spot check of the website article from smallstatebighistory.com, I can see the comment on the aircraft but I am unclear what particular part of the preceding sentence is being sourced. Can you please help?
  • I'm not exactly sure to what you're referring. The website article was used to help source the first sentence of the Development section concerning the move of the factory. The Gordon cite was in reference to that and the next couple of sentences. I wasn't exactly sure how to handle that since the first sentence is covered by both cites, but the rest is Gordon. Does that answer your question?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    • That is very helpful. Thank you. simongraham (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• I believe it should be "to meet a requirement".
• I feel the sentence "On one of these flights, demonstrating the aircraft to a visiting pilot, the crankshaft of one of the engines broke on takeoff and had to be declutched and shutdown during the flight." needs to changed. It currently could read that the crankshaft was demonstrating the aircraft. For example, I feel "as the aircraft was being demonstrated to a a visiting pilot" is a clearer alternative to the subclause but I am sure you will come up with something better.
• Otherwise, I can see no other spelling or grammar problems.

@Sturmvogel 66: Excellent work on what seems to be an obscure but interesting example from aviation history. Please take a look at my comments, suggestions and review above and ping me when you would like to take another look. simongraham (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that I've dealt with all of your comments; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you. This is looking great. A few other comments:

• Please add a link to first mention of the D-1 in the body.
  • Linked in the lede
• In the body, it mentions "Unlike the D-1, the aircraft had three cockpits" and "Unlike the D-1, only the upper wing was fitted with ailerons". I cannot see the statement mentioned in the lead about the engine being more powerful. Am I missing something?
• I have also amended the sentence about the clutch failure to make the pilot the person demonstrating. Please tell me if the change is acceptable. simongraham (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Your change looks fine. See if mine are as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Excellent work. I believe this article meets the GA criteria. simongraham (talk) 10:51, 15 February 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.