Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arado Ar E.381/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:11, 23 September 2010 [1].

Arado Ar E.381

Featured article candidates/Arado Ar E.381/archive1

Nominator(s): WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have gone through a failed A-class review with WP:MILHIST, where consensus was not garnered, and I feel I have met all the concerns raised there. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know the FAC process very well, but you might to at least get rid of the citation needed tag by adding in a reference. Also, I don't know much in aircrafts, but is there nothing more to be added in? While there is no set size for a FA article, I think more information should be added in. Derild 49 21 ☼ 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article was listed as a GA only a few weeks ago and several concerns were raised during its failed MilHist A-class review that I do not agree have been dealt with. In addition, the story it's telling is rather confused. For instance, "They [the Arado Ar E.381s] probably had only very limited capability against fighters", yet apparently "full production of the aircraft was cancelled before any could be used on the battlefield", therefore they clearly had no capability against fighters, as they never entered service. I'm not even sure after reading this whether any were actually built, as the design details are full of "The pilot would lie in in a prone position", "It was to be powered by a Walter HWK 109-509A-2 engine", and "the aircraft was to be armed with six rockets of an unspecified kind", implying that it never got off the drawing board. To be perfectly honest, I would have failed this article at GAN, never mind FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Malleus. If you've searched all the English sources, you may have to delve into German-language sources, and if those don't hold anything, this may be one of those articles which just doesn't have enough information on it to be able to pass FAC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on a prose review. It's fine with me if writers spend their time writing and not learning how to copyedit, but please get help from a copyeditor. I'm doing my best to get copyeditors to help out at SHIPS and MILHIST.

(German: Kleinstjäger – "small fighter"): might as well give the literal "smallest fighter", although Germans and military historians might correct me on that. Also, I see the {{lang-de}} template in use a lot, but do we really need to be told that a German fighter had a German name? It seems redundant to me. - Dank (push to talk)
jet powered: jet-powered - Dank (push to talk)
usage: "use" is more common in this sense - Dank (push to talk)
Its intended usage was the interception of American and British bombers after closing the firing distance to a minimum, thus increasing odds of hitting the target.: Wait, what? This sounds as if the fighter is intended to slam into a target ... not likely with a pilot inside. - Dank (push to talk)
To enable survival of the interceptor in close pursuit: "enable" means that the interceptor would not survive unless it had that cross section, which isn't true; you mean "increase the odds of" or some synonym. Also, the reader can't understand what the sentence is trying to convey unless you say what danger is being avoided by that design. - Dank (push to talk)
cross-section: "cross section" is better. Also, a lot of readers are going to need a link for this. - Dank (push to talk)
one-quarter of: "one quarter of", or better yet, "a quarter of". - Dank (push to talk)
glide back to the ground and land on skids in unpowered flight: something's redundant in there. - Dank (push to talk)
The project continued until the end of the war, but was eventually cancelled due to the collapse of the Third Reich: "The project was cancelled when the Third Reich collapsed." (Passive voice is the best I can do without knowing the subject.) - Dank (push to talk)
That was all in the first two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm just starting to look at the MILHIST FACs now that I have a better idea what I'm doing ... lucky you :) Don't get discouraged; none of us think this can't be a FAC eventually if you find the right sources, and finding a little copyediting help and getting help with translation of a German source or two are not hard with a little effort. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.