Talk:Lockheed D-21/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now had a quick read through of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level, so it will not be "quick failed". I'll now start a detailed review, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is generally well referenced and illustrated, but suffers from WP:Vagueness in places. I'm now going to highlight a few "problems" during this stage of the review. It helps me if comments/questions/objections/etc about a specific comment of mine are added below my comment rather than lumped together at the end.

• Design and development -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The first few paragraphs look OK, but in the fourth paragraph the statement "The Kapton-coated wires proved to be very brittle and tended to break when the connectors were seated or if the pins moved." is rather vague. Its not clear whether these are electrical cables and connectors or mechanical cables and connectors, from the context of the paragraph they could be either.

• Wires indicated electrical wiring and connections. However, I thought Kapton-coated sentence was too much detail and removed it. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Change in D-21 carriers -

• This subsection needs to be reconsidered in its entirety.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The previous paragraph is all about A-12 and Q-12 and M-12 and D-21, which are explained. The subsection title seems to be intentionally vague. This paragraph starts talking about B-52 without explanation (other than the subsection title and an image entitled A "modified D-21 carried on the wing of a B-52". This is vague, either add a wikilink or name the B-52 by name; and properly explain what is happening. In fact it is explained later in the fourth paragraph of the Testing subsection of the Operational history section.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The first paragraph contains the statement "...and its belly attachment points were adapted to accommodate the rocket booster" (what rocket booster?) and the second paragraph is all about the rocket booster. This is a rather strange approach. There does not appear to be a rocket booster on the A-12 / Q-12 and M-12 / D-21 configuration, the change to a B-52 is rather badly handled and detailed discussions of rocket boosters is given without any reasons for them being there (I can guess, but why should a reviewer/reader have to guess on an article is this seeking to be a GA).
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The term (possible abbreviation) LCO is used in this subsection, but LCO is not defined until the following Section, some four paragraphs after its first use.
• It states that "High-speed cameras were installed to track the drones as they separated from the pylons." but it is unclear what they were added to (B-52 or D-21 ?).
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - I assume that "A discharge of static electricity could have ignited the booster and everybody within 25 feet (7.6 m) were required to wear anti-static straps to prevent any discharge" refers to when the system is on the ground? Arguably no one in the air will be within 25 feet, but people in the aircraft during flight could well be within 25 feet of the booster (Faraday effects?).

• I tried to add and clarify things to cover these comments. The sentence that mentions the high speed cameras is referring to B-52 changes. The 2nd half of that paragraph from "Two B-52Hs were modified" cover the B-52 changes and additions. That should be clearer now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Operational history -
  • Testing -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - I assume that the intake and exhaust of the D-21 were covered during that captive flight-testing, not the M-21?
• In the fourth paragraph I assume that "both aircraft" refers to the D-21 and M-21 (it might be better to state aircraft and drone)?

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the intakes sentence. The sentence with "both aircraft" already states M-21 and D-21 before that. So I don't think there is a problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Belatedly, in the fifth paragraph there is some explanation of the vague Change in D-21 carriers, but there is no discussion of the testing of the solid-fuel boosters that appear without explanation in the Design and development section.

• Add brief mention for change with the details remaining in the testing section. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Operations -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Ref 23 (various images) give "403 Forbidden" error messages, so these claims are not WP:Verifiable.

• Fixed.

• Aircraft on display -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Ref 35 (Museum of Aviation Website) is a dead web link.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Ref 36 (Lockheed M-21 Blackbird, Museum of Flight) gives a "Page not found" error message at here.

• Fixed.

• WP:Lead -

• The lead is rather "thin", but I accept that it just about introduces the article and summarises the main points, but with one exception. No mention of the (delightfully ?) vague Change in D-21 carriers.

• At this point I'm putting the review On Hold for these points to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Between us, I think that Fnlayson and I have addressed all of your concerns. Please go over it again and see if that is correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative and well illustrated article. Pyrotec (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)