Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page	talk
Notability & Style guide	talk
Showcase & Popular pages
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Maintenance	talk
→ Article alerts
→ New articles	talk
→ AfD record	talk
Departments Assessment (Log) talk  → B-Class/A-Class  → Instructions Collaboration talk Peer review talk Outreach department talk  → Current newsletter New! Contest talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Members talk Project banner talk Portals Project category talk
Templates Infobox templates  → Aviation infobox talk  → Airport infobox talk  → Airline infobox talk  → Aircraft infobox talk  → Aviator infobox talk  → Aircraft accident infobox talk  → Company infobox talk Navigation boxes talk
Sub-projects Aircraft project talk  → Engines task force talk Airlines project talk  → Defunct Airlines project talk Airports project talk Gliding project talk Rotorcraft talk Military aviation talk Aviation accident talk Air sports task force talk Aerospace biography talk
This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

The review department of the Aviation WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles within its scope.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

• Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)
• A-Class review (a formal review of a candidate for an A-Class quality assessment)

It also provides a convenient collection of aviation articles currently undergoing formal review outside the project:

• Featured article candidates
• Featured article review
• Non-article featured content candidates

Toolbox

• Dablinks, Auto peer reviewer

Contents 1 Peer review 1.1 Step 1 - Create nomination subpage 1.2 Step 2 - Transclude and link 1.3 Step 3 - Advertise and notify 2 Requests 2.1 Druk Air 2.1.1 Mukkakukaku 2.2 Vladivostok Air 2.2.1 Born2flie 2.2.2 Canglesea 2.2.3 Mukkakukaku 2.3 Japan Airlines 2.3.1 Ian Rose 2.4 Cathay Pacific 2.5 Dragonair 2.5.1 Mukkakukaku 2.6 Oneworld 2.7 Bell 533 3 A-Class review 4 A-Class requests 4.1 Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) 4.2 CFM International CFM56 4.3 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 5 Featured article candidates 6 Featured article review 7 Non-article featured content candidates

[edit] Peer review

[edit] Requests

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Druk Air

Toolbox
automated tips∗ disambig links external links alt text edit count * Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is almost ready to go thru the GA/FA process, but would like comments on the article.

Thanks,

Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mukkakukaku

Looking at the automatic link checking tools, you've got a circular redirect in the article (a link to Drukair, which redirects to Druk Air.) Also you've got several disambig page links -- Bumthang, Council of Ministers, Eurocopter Ecureuil, Five-year plan, Gaya, Load factor, Overland, Paro -- which you'll need to fix before you get this through FA.

• 3 of your references are broken/dead (404): Waiting for Druk Air, Flying dragon, and Drukair winter schedule.

• The direct link to "Tourism Development in Bhutan: Tensions between Tradition and Modernity" doesn't work, but the other information is ok; consider removing the link to the PDF and just leaving the link to the journal itself.

• The link for reference "Bhutan puts its flag on the world's air map" has a strange file extension that nether I nor my computer recognize, so I can't check for reliability.

• The "Fleet" subsection is so short it's funny. Two aircraft, both of the same type, is not enough to support a table, so that needs to go. And unless there's more to talk about -- ex. they've just ordered six boeings that are going to be delivered (just made that up, but something like that) -- this section should be absorbed by another section.

• The "Into the future" heading sounds very unencyclopedic.

• The article is full of places where the ndash ({{ndash}}, – ) is used instead of a hyphen. Ex. "mid – 1980s" is wrong; it's one one, hypenated like so: "mid-1980s," with no spaces in the middle. En-dashes and em-dashes should be used like like semicolons — that is, like I just used here.

• Some overlinking. Ex. "committee" in the history section should either link to an article about the specific committee being talked about, or nothing at all; definitely not to committee.

• The copious in-sentence referencing makes it very hard to read (IMO). Is there a reason it's done this way as opposed to the end of the sentence? In my experience, in-sentence references are usually used when a part of a sentence is such that it requires additional referencing in addition to the referencing at the end of the sentence. An unrelated and completely made-up example: "During the course of the interview, Smith discussed the American war on terrorism, admitted to an extramarital homosexual affair,[12][14][35] and announced his candidacy for the gubernatorial post.[23][24][36]"

• Is the company BAE Systems or BAe systems? References are inconsistent within the article.

• The lead is very short. It also introduces information not mentioned elsewhere in the article. (Namely the fact that "druk" is its namesake -- this needs to be incorporated into the article elsewhere and sourced. Yes, it's self evident from Druk Air, but it needs sourcing. How does the casual reader not know that it wasn't named after some city named Druk, or some person named Druk, or the king... and so on?)

• In the lead, the second paragraph starts "Taking its name from Druk, the airline was founded..." Who/what is druk? Following the link, I now know it's the funky dragon, but that should be mentioned at least. Ex. "Taking its name from Druk, a "thunder dragon" from Bhutanese mythology,..."

• This sentence from the lead: "As the only airline flying into Bhutan, Druk Air has become a lifeline with the outside world for the Bhutanese people, as well as supporting emerging inbound tourism and export markets." (emphasis added) sounds very WP:NPOV, the "lifeline" bit at least. I'm sure there are at least some Bhutanese who couldn't care less and/or who remain unaffected by the existence of the airline. And the same sentence is repeated, word-for-word later on. The lead should summarize, not repeat.

• The lead mention nothing about the fleet. See also: WP:LEAD.

• If you do take this to FA review, the (very nitpicky) reviewers will get on your case about having a space between punctuation and a reference. Ex. "Blah blah blah. [13]" versus "Blah blah blah.[13]"

• The paragraph about Airbus and the memorandum of understanding is very confusing, especially to someone (like me) who has only ever taken a basic introductory economics course. It needs to mention, at least as an appositive, what a memorandum of understanding is, as well as a soft loan. Heck, the entire paragraph confuses me and even after reading the articles about all the economic terms, I'm still not sure what exactly happened.

• There is a paragraph in the section on future development written in the future tense about work that will start in October 2009... this needs to be updated, as I think that's passed.

• The File:Druk Air old logo.png image has a cleanup banner, which would quick-fail a GA on the article.

Other than the issues mentioned previously, the article should be ready for GA review. Ix-nay on the FA, though. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vladivostok Air

I've listed this article for peer review because the author is seeking feedback and wishes to improve it to GA-Class.

Thanks,

Canglesea (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Born2flie

Introduction

• consider moving the sentence, "...is the largest carrier in the Russian Far East and Siberia." to the second sentence in the first paragraph, or appending it to the first sentence, as this is what seems to most significantly establish notability in the article.
• Additionally is such a clumsy word for the introduction. "Additionally, Vladivostok Air offers charter flights and well established helicopter services." Consider, "Vladivostok Air also offers charter flights, and has a well established helicopter service."
• The use of the it pronoun twice in the same sentence can be confusing. Perhaps, "The airline's main hub is...with secondary hubs at..."?
• The whole second paragraph is difficult and doesn't seem to meet the intent of an introduction.

History

• The use of plane, airplane, and aeroplane is discouraged because of disputes between English dialect spellings. Aircraft is acceptable and to distinguish between helicopters and airplanes, fixed-wing aircraft should be used.
• First paragraph, I'm confused about the flight of the hydroplane...which I assume is a floatplane or some other amphibious aircraft; did it complete its first flight, or first arrive to begin service?
• Some of the language may be too much of a narrative, "That September day..." That whole sentence could possibly be joined and edited with the previous sentence for a complete thought in summary style.

I'll have to look at more later. --Born2flie (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Canglesea

The only thing I noticed, were some typos, which I fixed, and the overuse of additive terms like "additionally, and "also". The term "additionally' appears three times in the "Recent news" section; once would suffice. Also, the section headings should be in lower case: "Jet Era and Expansion" should be "Jet era and expansion". Otherwise, well done! - Canglesea (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll get to the edits soon. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mukkakukaku

Lead/Introduction

• You should consider varying the sentence structure. As it stands, the first word(s) of every sentence in the first paragraph is(are): Vladivostok Air, Vladivostok Air, It, Vladivostok Air, Its, Vladivostok Air. It seems very awkward. And I've had several GA reviews that have mentioned problems like this.

History

• This section is totally awesome.
• The only thing I can think of adding is some pictures. Consider: Commons:Category:Vladivostok Air.

Incidents

• You should mention here that Flight 352 is the only accident or incident to take place on a Vladivostok Air flight.
• For that matter, this section is extremely short -- it should either be integrated elsewhere or expanded (see previous bullet). Other ideas for expansion might be -- has it been officially compared or rated for safety against other comparable carriers in the region?

Destinations (both sections)

• Might want to consider putting in a paragraph of introduction, or expanding a bit. How many flights daily/weekly/monthly per destination? Are there any special flights or routes added during holidays or high-volume periods?
• If integrating incidents section, here is where it would happen.

References

• Of your 22 references, more than half (14) are from vladivostokavia.ru. While using the airline's official website for information is great, it really does not lead to a balanced POV. (They really do want to make themselves look good.)
• A search of the Google news archives brings up more potential sources. EG: [1] [2] [3].

Hope this has been (somewhat) helpful. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 05:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Japan Airlines

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this article to FA-status. Greatly appreciate any input!

Thanks,

Aviator006 (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Rose

I'm not an expert on airline articles but as far as FA in general goes, this looks like a good candidate. Comments:

• Structure, level of detail, and illustrations seem up to scratch. I haven't checked the licensing for the images but I see that all have alt text.
• Prose-wise it could probably do with an outside copy-edit. Just in the intro for instance there's a sentence like The group has a fleet of 279 aircraft, consists of only Boeing aircraft for its long-haul operations; and Airbus, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft for its short-haul operations. This could be tweaked to something like The group has a fleet of 279 aircraft, which consists of Boeing aircraft for long-haul operations, and Airbus, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft for short-haul operations (added "which", lost the "only", substituted semi-colon for comma, lost both "its").
• Referencing-wise, the article is very well cited, however I'm a bit surprised that it appears only online sources are used. Are there no books on JAL or at least general airline/aviation works that cover some of its history and current operations as well? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cathay Pacific

Hello there again, I have taken this article to GA-status in late July and also interested to possible take this to FA-status. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Aviator006 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonair

Hi there, I have taken this article to GA-status and would like to get it higher. I would be very interested your opinion on what can be improved for promotion. Thanks! Aviator006 (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mukkakukaku

First thing I noticed, right off the bat, is that of the 53 references you have, almost half (22) are somehow affiliated with Dragonair itself (press releases, website, &tc.) Inandof itself this is not a bad thing; their website and press releases will have a plethora of information. What I worry is that when an overwhelming majority of references are from a single source, especially when that source is the topic itself, then you might not be getting the best, most unbiased information available.

Please advise the specific areas of concern, as in what exact information you felt it was bias, this will enable me to try and research for other independent supporting information and citations. Aviator006 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

History section

• "Tough beginning" doesn't seem like a very encyclopedic heading (it sounds like something I'd expect to find on their website; it has a certain implication of -- "look we overcame all these terrible hardships and difficulties and look how great we are now!")

  Updated to "Early beginning". Aviator006 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• This sentence is ambiguous: "In January 1987, the airline announced the order of two long-range McDonnell Douglas MD-11 aircraft; however, due to strong opposition by Cathay Pacific, it was not able to gain the scheduled routes it needed to compete effectively." Why? This first section (tough beginning) is rather confusing.
• In the "1990s" section, you have this orphaned sentence: "In the 1990s, Dragonair was headquartered in the Devon House in Taikoo Place." Not sure what significance that has. What is Taikoo Place? What is Devon House? Where are they?
• Generally speaking you've got a lot of problems with tenses: -ed instead of -ing. EG: "The airline's net profits rose 60 percent to HK$540 million in 2002, with cargo operations accounted for 30 percent of revenues; and freight volume increased nearly 50 percent to 20,095 tonnes." should be "The airline's net profits rose 60 percent to HK$540 million in 2002, with cargo operations accounting for 30 percent of revenues; and freight volume increasing nearly 50 percent to 20,095 tonnes."

Subsidiaries

• The table lists three, but only one is actually expanded upon.
• The section needs some introductory text as well.

Destinations

• I don't think the article ever actually lists all the destinations. Yes, there's a "see also", but there should be a summary here. This section should have the listing of all the places they'll go, while the other article Dragonair destinations, should have the nitpicky stuff: in 2008, they added these routes; in 2009 they cut back on these, &tc.

Livery + Special Livery

• Both are extremely short sub sections and should be combined.
• Has the livery changed at all since its founding? This should be mentioned too.

Passengers

• The text says there are three classes of passenger, First/Business/Economy, and the table uses the letters F/J/Y to distinguish them. Which is which?
• The table should be expanded to include totals for seating areas as well as aircraft count.

Marco Polo Club

• The image is kind of floating off by itself; it needs a border and a caption.
• In the table, Green Tier row, Oneworld status column is empty. If there is no equivalent Oneworld status, it should be none, not entirely blank. (Entirely blank makes the formatting look weird -- the border disappears, &tc.)
• Consider changing font color on Green Tier in table to white; black-on-dark-green is kind of hard to read.
• The tier subsections can be merged with the parent section (Marco Polo Club). Frankly, it doesn't give any information not already provided by the table. Consider making the table float left and summarizing key points in paragraph form. (Ex: "The Marco Polo Club consists of four tiers: Green, Silver, Gold, and Diamond....")

Asia Miles

• Image needs border and caption.

Services

• Merge small sections and add introductory paragraph. (See comment in "Other/General comments")

Awards

• Section either needs to be integrated elsewhere -- perhaps the History section -- or expanded with actual text to go along with the collapsable template.

Incidents/Accidents

• Should probably be moved up to just under Fleet section. That way the logical flow of the article is Introduction > History > Destinations > Fleet > Accidents > Loyalty > Services > Awards. (On second thought, Loyalty should be moved after Services.) Right now this tiny section seems like an afterthought. I actually missed it on my first read-through.

Other/General comments

• Cathay Pacific may be overlinked. I can't run AWB right now on this computer or I'd go and check for sure.
• There's a lot of single-paragraph subsections. Most of these can be integrated into parent sections, or merged with other single-paragraph subsections. If all there is is a paragraph, I don't need a heading telling me what the paragraph is about!
• Maybe add a See also section for related links.

... and wow, I talk a lot. I hope at least some of this is helpful. A lot of this is stuff I've been forced to do for GA status, so it should apply for A or FA status as well. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oneworld

Hi all, I have taken this article to GA-status and would like to take it A-Class and even FA-Class. Please give me some objective advice on how I can improve it for promotion. Thank you very much. Aviator006 (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 533

Needs a look from the project before moving on to GA-Review. --Born2flie (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. The operational history section is good, but the development and design section is really lacking. I'm thinking that the development/design section could use a good summary/explanation of the different configurations. Then when you're going into the operational history you're talking about what happened and in what order, not some much the details of each config. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nimbus

Just had a quick look through for you, excuse the bullet points:

• Lead could be expanded with another paragraph, currently has no timeframe (although it is in the infobox).
• Many linked dates in the text, generally frowned upon if they are not 'germane' to the subject. We can link to just the year in the infobox though using the {{avyear}} template which it is not at the moment.
• Some figures missing metric conversions (mainly engine thrusts).
• Wikilinking - The following words could benefit from being wikilinked: Collective, autorotational, lift, fuselage, rotor, envelope, drag, fiberglass.
• Images - Looks like they could all be transferred to Commons, they certainly look for that at FA review, alt text would need to be added for FA but not for GA I assume.
• Specifications section missing.
• I wondered what happened to it, the answer is there but a bit hidden, an 'Aircraft on display' section could be justified. Is it in a museum that we have an article on?

Might all sound negative but I hope that helps, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on those. There does not seem to be enough content for an Aircraft on display section. The museum at Fort Eustis is the U.S. Army Transportation Museum. I can't find a mention for the Bell 533 on the museum's site now though. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, personally I create 'display' and 'survivor' sections in the engine articles even if it is just a couple of words as it can be found in seconds through the table of contents, no one has questioned it so far. Wonder if the 533 is in storage? Museums do that sometimes just to mess wiki articles up!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the links and unit conversions were added. For a specs section, only a certain configuration could be listed. There's data for the YH-40 they started with, but not enough data, like weights on the versions of the 533. It could just be that the Transportation Museum's web site is not that complete. Yes, the lead can be lengthened, at least a sentence on the configurations. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review

[edit] A-Class requests

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] CFM International CFM56

I am nominating this article for A-class, as it has recently undergone a massive revamp. A detailed development and design section has been added, and the article recently underwent a detailed peer review. The CFM56 is one of the most widely used jet engines in the world, and it would be a good turbine representative for aero-engines. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Compressor links to a disambiguation page.

• Done! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The alt text for the images is too detailed I believe, the way I understand it is that you are describing the image over the telephone and you and the person at the other end knows nothing at all about the subject(s), the KC-135 image would be something like 'a grey colored, four-engined jet aircraft is flying from right to left'. The Nixon image would be something like 'A group of suited men and military officers stand in front of three flags, two men are waving'. It's difficult but it can be done.

• I have gone back through the alt text, removing proper names and unneeded details. I think these comply with WP:ALT now, but another opinion is always useful! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Almost, the infobox image still has CFM56 in it, the 737 inlet has Boeing 737 in it and other images have technical terms like 'compressor, booster, turbine and fan case etc. (remember this is my wife describing the images to her sister on the telephone!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good catch on the lead image and the nacelle image! I've fixed those now. I'm not exactly sure what to do museum image. In my mind, "blade" is the descriptive, over-the-phone word, and "compressor" or "turbine" is just the modifier. I could say "there are three sets of blades from left to right", but I feel like specifying which blades they are adds to the description. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• All external links including the references are currently live, I have not checked their reliability as sources.
• The auto peer reviewer tool [4] indicates that non-breaking spaces are needed, that units need to be written out in full (only at the first instance usually) and that there is scope to remove extra words like all, any, many, some and several.

• I have tweaked the text to remove some of those useless words, and I have slightly re-organized the headers and limited the TOC to get it a bit shorter. I have started writing out units at the first case, but if you spot one I haven't gotten, feel free to jump in a clean it up ;). -SidewinderX (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• SmackBot got some of the non-breaking spaces, but yea, there are still some more than need to be fixed. I'm kinda hoping that someone suggests a magical tool to automatically do that... *looks around* -SidewinderX (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The tool is also indicating that the lead is too short, it's often wrong but I think there is room for another paragraph, the new 'Engine failure' section is not mentioned. It might be useful to add a timeframe, we have first run (1974) in the infobox but the intro to service date and any other milestones are usually included in the lead (there are some dates in the main text that could be used).

• I have tweaked the lead a little bit. I can't think of an easy to to incorporate the engine failure section into the lead... any suggestions? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• A suggested new third paragraph:

Although the CFM56 is a reliable engine several serious fan blade failures were experienced during its early service, one failure was noted as a cause of the Kegworth air disaster, which were serious enough to ground the fleet or required the engine to be redesigned. Problems caused by flight through rain and hail were also remedied by modifications. By September 2009, the CFM56 had flown over 450 million cumulative hours (the equivalent of more than 51,000 years).

Just a suggestion BTW, don't feel that you have to add this verbatim or even add it at all. I believe that you do not have to use cites in the lead as long as the information is clearly cited elsewhere in the article. It gets complicated if 'as of' is used (see WP:ASOF), I use 'by' instead! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I've modified your suggestion and added it to the lead. How does that read? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Getting there! Are the 'continuing improvements' related to safety/reliability as that is the 'thrust' of that paragraph? It's implying that the engine still has problems. I'm not seeing continuing improvements mentioned in the article (although it might be there!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, good point. I got lost in the forest for all trees for a minute there. You're right; that paragraph is about the engine failures and improvements, nothing else. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Images - There is a lot of discussion at the Featured Article candidates talk page about the poor quality of images in nominated articles, apparent lack of thought on their placement and copyright problems. They particularly note that images are being overlooked at project reviews. I would prefer if another editor reviewed the images so that I don't go on!!

• Anyone willing to critique the images is more than welcome to! I know some of them (like the museum cut-away) aren't great photos, but, in that case, I feel it is useful in the article. One image I would like to use is a cut-away diagram (like the Flight International ones) and/or a flow diagram. However, none of these are free and it seems like defending a fair-use rational might be more trouble than it's worth. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope that helps, I won't hog this as I've already said enough at the previous peer review! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - I feel this article is A-class material. A-class criteria: "It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources..." -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - generally this is very good, engagingly written and well structured, cited and illustrated. I've made a few minor copyedits for style but have a few more comments:

Thanks for your comments, particularly for the "engagingly written" one. As I was researching the article I was drawn into the rather intriguing story of the engine, and I really wanted the reader to get that same engagement that I felt. I've read many a "good" article here on wikipedia that are just plain dull, and I don't want articles that I work on to feel like that if I can. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• You don't need to repeat the citations for inital run and number built in both the intro and the infobox; I prefer a 'clean' infobox myself so suggest you drop them from there and leave them in the intro.

• That makes sense. I'm guessing I put the cits in the info box first, and then worked them into the lead later. I have fixed it. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you need the Work Split subheading - it's too small a subsection and should just be another paragraph under CFM International.

• That's a fine suggestion, done. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the KC-135R and DC-8 subsections. The former appears fragmented with a couple of single-sentence paras that could be rolled up into the previous para (the one that begins The USAF announced...). Also it's a good idea to always finish a paragraph with a citation at A-Class level. Both these subsections fail to do that everywhere.

• I integrated the short paragraphs into the main body, and slightly reworked the paragraphs to end with a citation. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Be good for first para of Design to have at least one citation, even if it is introducing the following subsections.

• Ok, I've added a sentence and the citation. I will say that I feel a little silly adding a citation to an introductory paragraph, but I've seen enough FA reviews to know that some editors here have hard ons (if you will) for that sort of thing. Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All good, except could we have citations added for last sentence of First customers and last sentence of first para of KC-135 pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a cite to the First Customers section, and I've moved the cite over to include the last sentence of the KC-135 paragraph. I understand the "rule-of-thumb" approach to putting cites at the end of paragraphs, but in this case the last sentence is just there as a transition to the next paragraph, and I really don't think it's a "best practice" to list the cites at the end of the paragraph for the sake of doing it. It makes more sense to me to place the citation and the end of the material that needs the cite. That said, I'm the wiki-noobie in the group here, so I'll do what the practice is. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree but the reader doesn't know that for sure so it's generally best to cover all bases. Anyway, I'm happy to support this now - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I'd convert the 20,000 lbf to kN in the first para of the Development section even though it's not strictly a A-class requirement.

• Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disambiguate the link to specific fuel consumption.

• Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Copyright on all images looks good.

Ok, notice anything else I need to fix? -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3

This article has just completed a Milhist A-class review and I believe that it complies with the requirements for WP:Aviation as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support per MilHist ACR review/promotion - Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidates

[edit] Featured article review

[edit] Non-article featured content candidates