Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gliding

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Gliding

edit

This is a self-nomination. The article has been accepted as a Good Article and has had a successful peer review. JMcC 11:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notables are not referenced, and section headings need attention per WP:MOS: for example, Some national gliding associations could be National associations and Maximising cross-country speed could be Maximising speed (read guidelines about repeating words in headings). Needs a copyedit; look at this sentence, for example: "In the 1950s in many countries there were a large number of trained pilots, many were also aeronautical engineers, who wanted to continue to fly." Sandy 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions implemented, including referencing all notable pilots JMcC 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support As the GA promoter, I am looking at this closely and seeing some of the things that I was alright with for that are not for FA. They're minor ... I've been doing some copy work and found one fact I'd like to see cited. But so far that's all. Daniel Case 03:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted Daniel Case who accepts the fact is now cited. He has since done a very useful copyedit. JMcC 23:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, I now declare my wholehearted support. Daniel Case 03:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just went through a hard copy with a pen, which led to ... yet another copyedit. The prose, I think, is now as smooth as the subject :-). I found several places where citations should be made, and those are marked in the article.
Here are the things I was talking bout where we could "go further".
  • "Germany remains the world centre of gliding". The article establishes that Germany is indeed a world center of glider manufacturing, but what of the sport itself? I would like to see more evidence. Are the best pilots predominantly, or significantly, German? Are the most prestigious competitions held there? It would support this point better to say that were it so (and, of course, provide the appropriate citations).
  • Is it really necessary to describe cumulus clouds as "the fluffy, cotton-wool type cloud" when you have a picture right there?
  • We have some places here where perhaps another article could be created. The On-Line Contest website, for instance (Perhaps, if it does not meet WP:WEB, at least we could have a screenshot here?). And the MacCready theory (Also, is it the same as the "speed to fly theory"? The article makes it seem so, but is not explicit about this).
Reply For response see end of this section JMcC 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • object, the article has a few problems, including prose that sounds more like a glider promo manual than wikipedia's NPOV. For example: "all recreational glider pilots enjoy the freedom, the scenic views and the sense of achievement" "Most clubs offer trial lessons to people interested in learning to glide and will accept bookings by phone." Also, the large number of citations is misleading, because entire sections are without a single reference, while lists have cites for every entry. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the useful comments. I have now added even more references including books that cover the whole subject (there are now 57) to meet your request. The fully cited list was at the request of Sandy. Are there still any remaining specific facts that need to be referenced? Please note that sometimes the reference at the start of the section covers all of it. A promo for gliding that has a long list of hazards is not good advertising, so some attempt has been made at NPOV. I added the Challenges section also for this reason. Are there any other aspects which would add balance? In its defence the article attempts to answer the questions: "why would anyone voluntarily get into a cramped, unpowered aircraft and fly for hours away far from the airfield in turbulent conditions?" and "how do normal people start?". Nevertheless I will tone down the stuff about freedom etc and delete the bookings by phone (I suppose it does sound like a promo). As a general comment, I would appreciate feedback phrased such as "there are problems Y, Z etc but it is x% of the way there". JMcC 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've had a peripheral interest in this article over a couple of years, but others the work. I've read a couple of books on gliding, and I'm pretty confident this article gives a comprehensive overview of the subject. User:Jmcc150 has done a good job of illustrating and referencing the article, as well as addressing any of the concerns raised in Peer Review and here. All other FA criteria appear to be met and the subject is rather more mainstream than some of the other FA articles in the Sports and Games section. -- Solipsist 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Refs adjusted for consistency with WP:FN. I noticed this line: "The first German gliding competition was held at the Wasserkuppe[4] in 1920, organised by Oskar Ursinus." The reference goes to a website about Wasserkuppe that talks about gliding and later competitions, but doesn't seem to mention the "first" one. What fact is this citation supposed to be referencing? If it is merely to acknowledge the Wasserkuppe site, then perhaps it should be in External Links? Gimmetrow 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess the reference confirms that competitions were held at Wasserkuppe in 1920. However, I would agree that it doesn't actually verify that these were the first gliding competitions in the world. this link also confirms the 1920 date at Wasserkuppe, and by implication given its context in the narative of gliding history it would be the first competition. Other links more easily confirm that the first international Gliding World Championships were held there in 1937. -- Solipsist 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another reference to Oskar Ursinus and the first meet in Germany as being in 1920. Ann Welch's book that is also given as a reference cites the Waserkuppe meeting as the first one in the world. I have tried to use on-line references as much as possible, despite my large gliding library. It is much more interesting if other people can also read these references. JMcC 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing any facts, just wondering what facts were being referenced. One online reference was a mirror of a wikipedia page, which is not really OK with WP:RS. There is nothing wrong with using book references; if you simply want to make an online source accessible for further reading, it can be placed in external links. Some references point to personal sites; those might be more appropriate as external links too. Gimmetrow 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Book reference Ann Welch's book (page 51) added to replace previous reference. Sorry I hadn't noticed the previous reference was a Wikipedia mirror. The last suggestion seemed optional so I will leave the other references as they are. JMcC 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply All comments have now been answered by adjustments to the article. There are now 76 references. (A requested illustration of the On-Line Contest would not be visually attractive since it is merely a table of participants.) This article has now moved a long way down the list of FAC and so may not get the attention is now deserves. However all comments are still welcome. JMcC 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my last batch of issues have been addressed and it is likely the article will need only some copyediting work to smooth the edges of the newly-introduced material.
However, I checked the image licensing out, and Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg needs its license updated as the current tag is a deprecation notice for a previous "permission with no commercial use". Check with the copyright holder and see if a no-rights-reserved version, like the other images in the article, is possible. Daniel Case 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Rather than wait for information that would allow me to improve the old copyright tag, I have loaded a new (and better) image without any copyright problems. JMcC 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support -- A well researched and organized article about a wonderful sport. If more people knew of it larger numbers might enjoy it. Wikipedia is in a position to better bring it to the public's attention. Richard Weil 02:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Richard Weil[reply]
Reply I have sought clarification of this vague comment. JMcC 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have since contacted Ghirla who wished to remove the lists in the 'See also' section. Since these provide useful information, rather than 'fun', I have left them untouched. JMcC 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
List has now been deleted following another request. See below. JMcC 23:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my rationale on the nominator's talk page. Now that the listcruft was eliminated, I see no reason for opposing. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article has improved, but I agree with Ghirla about the listiness. A See also list of links to articles of people who glide tells us nothing about the significance of those people as gliders. That See also list needs to be converted to some interesting prose, giving us something worth knowing about the participants and the activity. Hazards and Challenges to the Gliding Movement need to be converted to brilliant and compelling prose; Wiki isn't a how-to manual, it's an encyclopedia. There are places in the prose where the relevance of the text isn't clear: "On rare occasions glider pilots have been able to use a technique called 'dynamic soaring', where a glider can be made to gain kinetic energy by repeatedly crossing the boundary between air masses of different horizontal velocity." Can be made to gain? What is the "rare occasions" about, and why is it relevant? Sandy 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • I agree that the section on hazards is a 'how-to'. It was added by someone else and I was over-cautious about removing their information. I have long wanted an excuse to reduce it and have now done so with great pleasure. I hope you now think that it reads better. The section on challenges seems to read OK to me and could not be classified as a 'how-to'.
  • In my opinion, a list of famous people who happen to be or have been glider pilots is interesting. For example the fact that a man who has been a test-pilot and has landed on the moon now gets his satisfaction from flying unpowered aircraft is significant, even if he is not the current world champion. A German fighter ace or the apparently vacuous Barbara Cartland are also to my mind surprising. If this is all that stops it becoming a featured article, it is an easy amendment to zap the list. However the list is a minor aspect, and it is the opinion of two experienced Wikipedians that it detracts from the article. I have therefore deleted it. (Incidentally the aircraft are 'gliders' and the people who fly them are called 'pilots'.)
  • A new article on National gliding associations has been created and the list removed
  • The list in related sports has been transformed into a paragraph with additional information
  • The use of dynamic lift is what keeps albatrosses aloft without flapping their wings and some explanation is needed why gliders usually can't fly that way. It has been possible for gliders to soar dynamically once or twice, but since you object to the phrase 'on rare occasions', I have removed it. I have also simplified the admittedly clumsy English by removing three words from 'can be made to gain'.
  • The comments by this objector has again been answered but as always I am willing to discuss further changes. The word Asymptote springs to mind. JMcC 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC) and 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gliding&oldid=1039200835"