Wikipedia

Talk:Hawker Sea Fury/GA1

< Talk:Hawker Sea Fury
Latest comment: 11 years ago by SilkTork in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Minorhistorian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • This article does deserve consideration for GA, with the following provisos:

*There are still lots of problems with grammar and sentence structure; For example, the section Naval Version starts with: "The Second World War in Europe now approaching its finale, the RAF had quickly began to reducing its level of aircraft procurement by cancelling many ongoing orders; the budding Fury was a victim of these cutbacks, the RAF having viewed the type as overlapping with existing orders for advanced marks of the Supermarine Spitfire and Tempests, many of which were already being delivered straight into storage."

  • Why not simply say "(With) the end of the Second World War in Europe now in sight the RAF began cancelling many aircraft orders. Thus, orders for the Fury were cancelled before any production examples were built because the RAF already had storage units full of late Mark Spitfires and Tempests and considered the Fury to be surplus to its requirements."? Or similar.
  • Part of any ongoing editing should (hopefully) reduce the numbers of semi colons punctuating the text.

*Avoid mixing up past and present tense (eg: Introductory paragraphs; Hawker Fury Design)

  • On the more technical side it would be good to have a uniform system of mark numbers; settle on standard designations such as Sea Fury F. Mk. X, Sea Fury F.B. 11/ F.B 51, T Mk 20 or T 20 - choose one method and stick to it throughout, this makes it much easier to work out which version of the aircraft is being discussed.
  • Some citations needs to be tidied up: "Korean Warrior - FAA in Korea". Aircraft (Ian Allan Publishing), October 2011. ISSN 2041-2150. No author given for article, nor any page numbers, plus the citation should not be used as a bibliographic entry. Brown and Buttler (cites 4 & 5) do not need the titles and issues of the respective magazines, just the page numbers.

*Two websites or website articles are no longer available:

  • 1) Goebel, Greg. "Hawker Typhoon, Tempest, & Sea Fury." Air Vectors. Retrieved: 7 April 2006.
  • 2) "Official History of the Bay of Pigs Operation, March 1960–April 1961." Central Intelligence Agency, 25 July 2011. Retrieved: 21 October 2012. This particular document can be found by searching the CIA database, but it is under a different title to the one given in the article and it is no longer available for download; ie: "REVIEW OF OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE BAY OF PIGS OPERATION, VOLUME I, AIR OPERATIONS, MARCH 1960-APRIL 1961 Doc No/ESDN: CIA-RDP80-00473A000600120003-4 Pages:1 No document available for download."
  • Citation 46 uses a website: White, Rowland. "Sea Fury - A New Perspective on a Famous Dogfight". Korea 1950 - 1953, 2001. Retrieved: 24 February 2013. The introduction to the page says the article first appeared in "FlyPast" magazine, so, if the information can be found, the magazine article should be the primary source, not a website. The article first appeared in FlyPast #253, August 2002
G'day, Minorhistorian, I don't mean to step on any toes, but I thought I might be able to help given that unfortunately the nominator may not be active anymore. I don't regularly work on aircraft articles, but I had a go at copy editing the article anyway. I think I may have addressed some of the issues you have listed above. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks for taking the time to review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment: The Greg Goebel article has moved to [1] - however, previous discussions [2] and [3] have indicated that it isn't considered a WP:RS. In addition http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Seafury.html appears to be a private website - is it a WP:RS?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The bit the FAA Archive support is a bit confusing it is used to say the Sea Fury replaced the Seafire on most carriers, the next bit says they operated alongside each other for an number of years. Perhaps we can find a better reference that clears up the confusion? MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh I see we are using an image at airliners.net as a ref currently [67] images are not really reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
There isn't even a link to the photo that is meant to be a reference. here is a list of photos of VH-SHF on airliners.net.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

What's the status on this? Wizardman 04:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

G'day, unfortunately the nominator seems to have retired. I've tried to help out in addressing some of the concerns, but I can't help out with the issues that have been raised about referencing as I don't have any sources. In that regard, I'd probably suggest that the review be closed as unsuccessful unless others can help address the concerns raised by Nigel and MilborneOne. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article's looking much better; just resolving a couple of issues with reference 53 under Cuba "a second Sea Fury, flown by Douglas Rudd Mole, shot down another B-26." This Cites the Bay of Pigs Report in its entirety - the report is 210 pages long so this needs to be more specific. One problem with using the "Cite Web" template is that citing page numbers is awkward.

As it is the official report should take precedence over Ledincer's article, which isn't really needed anyway:

  • While Ledincer states that a pilot named "Douglas Rudd Mole" shot down a B-26 there is no mention of this in the official report which goes on to say that four B-26s were shot down while four were forced to crash land: Ledincer indicates that at least five B-26s were shot down on 17 April.
  • Also note that the official report states Rojas claimed to have shot down a B-26 while Ledincer turns this into a confirmed.

Having two cites saying different things for one paragraph can be confusing, plus it is an example of synthesis or original research [4]. The report is more specific about what happened during the BOP operations, while to find 17 April 1961 in Ledincer's article requires lots of scrolling down to find one brief paragraph, which has no sources shown to confirm that the information is accurate. I also note that this:

  • Ferrer, Edward B. Operation Puma: The Air Battle of the Bay of Pigs. Atlanta: Georgia: International Aviation Consultants, 1982 (English edition), First edition 1975 (Spanish). ISBN 0-9609000-0-4.

Ledincer's article is also used under "Burma" - I would recommend finding a reliable published source rather than relying on an unreferenced website. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Review by SilkTork

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Pass
  • Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Prose is clear and readable. As part of ongoing development, it could do with a decent copyedit though: for example, each paragraph of the lead starts "The Sea Fury..."; there are some overweight and awkward sentences, "Thus, the RAF's order for the Fury was cancelled before any production examples were built because the RAF already had excessive numbers of late Mark Spitfires and Tempests and viewed the Fury as an additional overlap with these aircraft." / "This included the construction of what was intended to be a Boulton-Paul built Sea Fury prototype, VB857, which was transported to Kingston in January 1945; this aircraft, built to the same standard as SR666, first flew on 31 January 1946.", and there are times when the article is a bit too dense with technical detail: "the next prototype to fly was a Sea Fury, SR661, described under "Naval Conversion." NX802 (25 July 1945) was the last Fury prototype, powered by a Centaurus XV.[11] LA610 was eventually fitted with a Napier Sabre VII, which was capable of developing 3,400–4,000 hp (2,535–2,983 kW); this aircraft become possibly the fastest piston-engined Hawker aircraft after reaching a speed of around 485 mph (780 km/h)." SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • On re-reading I'm puzzled by some statements, such as "The Sea Fury's development was formally initiated in 1943 in response to a wartime requirement of the RAF, thus the aircraft was initially named Fury." The first half of the sentence doesn't explain why the plane was called Fury. And this sequence: "Specification N.7/43 was modified to N.22/43, now representing an order for 200 aircraft. Of these, 100 were to be built at Boulton-Paul's Wolverhampton factory.[15] // In 1945, the original order to specification N.22/43 was reduced to 100 aircraft; as such the manufacturing agreement with Boulton-Paul was ended and all work on the Sea Fury transferred to Hawker Aircraft's facilities at Kingston." I'm working to get my head around this. Who had ordered the plane. Why did the order get increased to 200 then reduced to 100? Why is Boulton-Paul mentioned if they didn't actually make any planes? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • It is written and presented in a neutral tone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Query

Hawker Tempest, for example, are already mentioned in the main body. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fail

OK, I'm stopping now. I think there are a number of issues coming up. Each in itself quite small, but as more and more come up it's becoming clear that this article is not meeting GA criteria as it stands and would require someone to work on it to deal with the issues. As the GAN has been open for over two months, and there are still issues, and nobody is available to deal with the issues, I recommend that this is closed as not listed. People can work on it and nominate it again later. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • As Minorhistorian (reviewer), Kyteto (nominator and main contributor), and Bzuk (significant contributor) are currently inactive on Wikipedia I'm closing this GAN. The article can be renominated again when someone is available to address any issues arising. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hawker_Sea_Fury/GA1&oldid=1136788731"