Talk:Supermarine Sea King

References

The references are consistently formatted at present but I want to use the Harvard system when working on the article, which I intend to raise to GA level. Please comment if you have any objection. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Distinguish from other Sea Kings

I think it would be useful if this article had this template added:

For other uses, see Sea King (disambiguation).

--Shimbo (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sea King doesn't redirect here, so confusion is unlikely. Because Wikipedia frowns on hatnotes in such cases, Ive removed it. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Confusion is not unlikely, as the reason I made the suggestion is that I ended up on this page whilst looking for the helicopter of the same name. Two flying machines with the same name is clearly a possible source of confusion. Perhaps "distinguish" template rather than "other uses" would be better, but it needs something. --Shimbo (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shimbo and BilCat: None of the other Sea King aircraft have hatnotes, but how about this suggestion (for all of them)? Amitchell125 (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For other aircraft named Sea King, see Sea King (disambiguation).

That seems like a good idea to me. --Shimbo (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem at all necessary, if 'Sea King' is typed in to the search bar the top suggestion in the drop down menu is the DAB page, if return is hit without selecting the page then it appears anyway. The four aviation related choices are listed in the top section. I would say that this case falls under WP:NOTAMB. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Supermarine Sea King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would integrate note 1 into the text.

Done. AM

• "A unique feature of the Sea King II was a tube that ran through the hull to supply air to the 'rear step'" What "rear step"?

Explanation given. AM

• Lead says "probably", body says "the aircraft exhibited was a modified N60 Baby". Be consistent

Sorted. AM

• "240 horsepower (180 kW) Siddeley Puma engine" this is not cited anywhere

Cited. AM

• What is the basis of CC licensing for the archive.org images? Since it's a UK publication I expect both UK and US public domain tags would be necessary (probably {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1923}}).

Tags added. AM

(t · c) buidhe 03:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I've checked a few of the sources and did not find any close paraphrasing, failed verification, or OR issues. The only outstanding issue is image licensing (t · c) buidhe 09:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• OK, the licensing issue seems to be sorted now. Although, for future reference I would not advise changing the licensing of images that already have OTRS permissions, or leaving contradictory information about the licensing status, I fixed these issues myself. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, Buidhe. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)