Talk:Howmet TX/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Question: Should a sentence really start with "Initially"? In the Racing history, paragraph 3, this sentence ---> "The Howmet TX was able to earn victory here, allowing it to start on pole position for the main event", shouldn't "here" be replaced with "there", since its talking about the past.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Does Reference 3 cover all this? ---> "Interest in the use of gas turbines as a alternative to the piston engine had been gaining support in the automobile industry during the 1960s. Chrysler had begun limited testing and leasing of their Turbine Car to the public in 1963, while British manufacturer Rover and racing team BRM combined to build a racing car for the 24 Hours of Le Mans that same year. Both cars showed reliability and high fuel economy but were unable to win over the public or to win at Le Mans respectively. By 1967, team owner and car developer Andy Granatelli had created a turbine-powered roadster for the Indianapolis 500 that nearly won the race for American driver Parnelli Jones, but suffered mechanical failures after leading over two-thirds of the event. A similar attempt in 1968 also led to retirement after showing winning potential"? Does Reference 1 cover all this, in the Turbine section, ---> "A two-stage setup used an internal power turbine to drive the rear wheels through the use of reduction gearing. Due to the wide variable output of the turbine, a standard gearbox was not necessary, leaving the Howmet TX with only a single gearing speed. However, the gearing ratios were able to be quickly changed in the differential, allowing the car to be adapted to various circuits. Due to the use of a single-speed transmission, there was no gearing for reverse. Although Heppenstall initially wished to do without reverse, the FIA mandated its use and a small electric motor powered by the turbine was installed, allowing the car to move in reverse" and "The turbine itself used two large exhaust pipes which were directed upwards out of the rear of the car. However, a smaller third pipe was situated off-center for use with a wastegate. The wastegate was designed to eliminate the lag between the driver pressing the accelerator and the turbine increasing its revolutions. Once the turbine was at its maximum revolutions, the wastegate helped regulate the amount of fuel actually entering the turbine, thus increasing or decreasing the power output"? In the Later use section, is there a source for both this ---> "Heppenstall kept the chassis, sans engine, for many years until he eventually sold them" and this ---> "Haines still owns #GTP3 as of 2008 and has entered the car in historic motorsport events, including the 2007 Goodwood Festival of Speed"?

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
"Thanks to fuel economy the car was able to improve to third but on lap 34 the turbine wastegate failed to open, giving the driver too much power for the corner he was in", is there a way this sentence can be re-written, since it states "Thanks to fuel economy"? In the Racing history, paragraph 4, this sentence ---> "Now that the Howmet TX was proven to be a winning competitor", sounds like POV and may need to be re-written.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Prose, the term Initially has been replaced in a few sentences, and the other sentence has been changed to There.
For Citations, the paragraph covering the brief history of turbine cars has had references added for each individual car mentioned. However, for the latter paragraphs regarding the setup of the Howmet's turbine, the single source provided for the two paragraphs does reference everything mentioned, and I have as of yet been unable to find another source which covers these specifics, but I have added a second citation from teh Ray Heppenstall interview which also discusses everything in these two paragraphs. The Later Use sections have had a reference added regarding the whereabouts of #GTP3, and I've altered the sentence regarding Heppenstall's ownership to merely state that Heppenstall did purchase the TXs from Howmet, but that they are (obviously) no longer in his ownership.
Regarding Neutrality, I've altered thw two sentences mentioned so that they make more sense and are indeed neutral. The359 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries here, thanks for yout time (and patience), much appreciated. The359 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its no problem at all. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]