Talk:Arado E.381

About the refs

Can we use either Notes or References and not both, East of Borschov? AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 19:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of both headings is acceptable and encouraged in WP:CITESHORT. Specifically notes are for short references (i.e. Author, Date and Page) and References are for the full citation of the works used in the short references. Anotherclown (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment

I have reassessed this now as Start class, from a B. Although it is clearly a very obscure aircraft, and this no doubt means that it will always be fairly brief, I feel that the article is not yet comprehensive enough to meet this standard. Specifically a table of aircraft specifications could be added (which is fairly standard for aircraft articles), while at the same time it also falls down on referencing as only one main work has been cited. If these are added I would be happy to revise this assessment. Good work so far. Anotherclown (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see these have been added now and the article reassessed by another user as B class, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there anything you think that could be added now? AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy edits

Copy edits have now been completed as requested. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arado Ar E.381/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some figures need conversion (i.e., the "5 mm armored shell")  Done

   There needs to be consistency in the ordering of numbers. I'd suggest metric first, since this is a German aircraft.  Done

   In the same vein, you've got a mix of spellings (i.e., "armor" but "metre." Pick either American or British English and standarize/ise the article.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There's a citation needed tag that needs to be addressed.  Done

   What makes http://www.luft46.com/arado/are381.html reliable?  Done Replaced with better source.

   The books need page numbers for the citations.  Done Replaced the Masters work.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article body needs to state what happened to the aircraft, production-wise. Remember, the lead section should simply be a summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. There shouldn't be anything there that isn't in the body of the article.

   will begin work soon, unless you want to help

    Done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 02:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Also, do you know anything about specific production times other than "by March 1944"?

   no

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   But this criteria was met only after I removed the illustrations, all of which violated copyright. Just because the image isn't clearly marked with a copyright notice doesn't mean it's not protected by copyright. I suggest you err on the side of not using an image unless you can definitively prove the image is out of copyright. In the case of WWII images, unless they were taken by an American soldier, you can bet that they're still under copyright.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There's a fair bit of work needed to get this article in shape for GA, but I'm willing to leave the review open for as long as it takes, provided you're willing to do the work. Excellent work so far! Parsecboy (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been sick these few days, and will continue to be weakly active until the 29th. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

General comment: I don't know if it's been done, but this book is available on Google Books that should be examined to see if it has any extra information. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Move?

Since this wasn't an operational type, shouldn't this be moved to Arado E.381? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. The sources do not call it either Arado Ar E.381 or Arado E.31, but simply the "E.381" from "Arado." WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Which really supports the move, doesn't it? Since that means the identifier is "Arado E.381". Which the pagename would be... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be better discussed here than here. Make your proposal there. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reward

User:AirplanePro offered a reward back in June 2010 to get this article up to A class, and since it now is, technically the award should be given to someone. However, AP is no longer active, and therefore will most likely not be giving the award. So I figure either the award can be self-given, or I'd be willing to give the award on behalf of AP, the only thing is, I'm not sure who it should go to. It seems that User:WikiCopter has had the most edits since the offer was placed, but User:AustralianRupert and User:Dank also seem to have contributed. I figure you can work it out between yourselves, or maybe multiple awards can be given, as AP did not seem to stipulate how many people will receive the award. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been cleared up before, I am AirplanePro's successor account operated by the same person. I don't really have time now to point out where that was cleared up, somewhere either on my talk archives or AirplanePro's talk archives. I'm not really sure, since I did most of the work to A class, (dare I say it...) AustralianRupert and Dank were working on the prose, I believe, not content. Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 00:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, well then I guess you can decide what you want to do with the award. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Image is not an original photograph

The image in this article is not an actual photograph, instead it shows a rendered Ar 234C and E.381 superimposed on a photograph. Please compare with actual photographs of Ar 234C: - http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW6/Ar234-C3-45af+.jpg Cockpit instrumentation windscreen details should be clearly visible, but are missing. Also note position of the engine cones. The 3D model of Ar 234C and E.381 has also been used for further fakes, see http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Faked%20German%20Aircraft%20Photos.htm Sansmalrst (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I will make a note of this on the article. Thanks. WikiCopter 23:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)