Talk:FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Reads okay, seems to adequately cover the subject, and all major points cited -- a few things though:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Seems to be a tendency towards the passive voice in the language; I'm not an active voice fanatic but I think the article could stand a bit more of it...
Now that Bzuk and BushRanger have both taken a pass at the article, I'll update the comments... I'm still seeing a fair bit of 'passivity' that I would've thought could be cured. For instance, instead of A new design was then begun that used the more powerful (20.31 kN (4,570 lbf)) Rolls-Royce Nene II turbojet engine... can we not say The Institute then began a new design that used the more powerful (20.31 kN (4,570 lbf)) Rolls-Royce Nene II turbojet engine or some such? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still see some passive language but not overwhelming. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is much too short for a GA, it needs to summarise the main points of the article to follow.
This has improved but could still stand a bit more info, e.g. a sentence mentioning its brief operational career. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with lead length for GA; if you plan to take to ACR, would suggest more detail still (say an extra paragraph's worth) as the article is considerably longer now than when I first made this comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Myhra is mentioned under References but never cited. Related point is that all the data in the article is from one source, and single-source articles are always a potential concern -- can we have at least one more reference utilised, if not Myhra then another?
I see more sources from Bzuk, which is a good start. Note that the last line under Operational History is uncited, plus Myhra is still sitting unused in the References section—unless this is one to be gotten from the library... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, the Myhra work is still included in the Bibliography as it is somewhat useful although it is mainly a pictorial work. It also has been savaged in reviews as not being authoritative other than providing photographs and illustrations, albeit crudely reproduced (one reviewer called them "no better than photocopies"). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Tks mate. I see there are now citations to it, which is fine; if there were no citations to it, it could still appear but only under a Further Reading section, according to the MOS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a real problem with even the use of a "Further reading" section which to me makes utterly no sense. Either you use the material or you don't, authors would never list materials on speculation that they might be useful. Another aspect is that some sources can be used for background reading or have been cited by secondary sources, albeit without a page reference in most cases. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Granted but I can only go by guidelines when reviewing; anyway, it's fine now as the cited sources are split from the uncited sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under Specifications, can we have written out where the data is from?
This has been taken care of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
We say that Tank demoed the IAe 33 "in spectacular fashion" in 1951 -- how exactly was it spectacular? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to indicate that he flew the exhibition, I do not have a good source to describe the flying. Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
"most baffling political decision" might be better expressed as "most damaging political decision", unless "baffling" or a similar word can be quoted directly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See changes and addition of a quote to establish the strange reasoning behind the change in manufacturing priorities. Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"harbingers of an unrealized dream" sounds a bit peacockish, again unless it or something similar can be directly quoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed and added a quote from source. Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Great work finding all the new images but their positioning means a lot of white space following the lead section and the Kurt Tank section when viewed under IE on a 4x3 screen. Generally images should alternate either side of text; this might cure the prob. I eliminated the white space when editing the image positions a while back but the prob has crept back in since then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do about getting the images arranged better when I get the chance. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about white space must be tied to a browser problem as this layout was made with Mozilla Firefox and does not exhibit the issues mentioned. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I user both Firefox and IE on different machines and the problem doesn't happen with the former for me either. They're different browsers with different characteristics (not "problems" per se). Most if not all articles can be made to display without white space in both environments, with a little effort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explorer is terrible in maintaining formats and should be avoided like the plague; regardless, I have found a few more images that I had kept in reserve that will serve to illustrate the narrative and have arranged them in the appropriate left-right juxtaposition. Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! White space is totally gone on both rectangular and more normal aspect ratios. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the white space has gone in IE now. I think other reviewers might still consider there are too many images (losing the white space means there's some sandwiching of text between pictures) but I concede that all of them are illustrating something worthwhile. The one thing I'd suggest now is to move the "The design elements of the IAe 33 Pulqui II" drawing to the Specifications section, or eliminate it all together, as it seems to be the one image not conforming to your neat left-right alternate arrangement, and it's perhaps not vital given the three-view drawing we have already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for now while the above points are addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, is this even a valid candidate? The writing is definitely stilted and there is a paucity of reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've mentioned those things, and I'm happy to give the nominator a chance to improve it -- let's see... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For such an obscure subject, finding references may be hard - it's on hold for a week, right? I can get my hands on a book or two from the library on Tuesday, and I'll see what I can do otherwise between now and then. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've got a week. Good luck, it's a worthwhile article to get right. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're ready now, perhaps? - The Bushranger (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have one last area to address and that is the definitive production version of the Pulqui II. This version would have seen an uprated Nene with afterburner that would have produced a Mach 0.98 performance, quite remarkable for the mid-1950s. I have the source but need to double check the page references. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

With the final edits today, we have probably exhausted all of the resources extant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Guys, just so you know, had a busy week but if it's all reasonably stable now, will be able to get back to re-review in next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, life happens. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 10:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major improvements in detail and sourcing—well done! Left on hold while new points above are addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a few more areas to delve but essentially I'm done. Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tks for all the hard work. I'm happy to pass this now -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]