Talk:Concorde/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 18:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    In the lead, third paragraph, last sentence: The last retirement flight occurred on 26 November... - was there more than one retirement flight? If there wasn't, "last" or "retirement" (one or the other) isn't needed. Airplaneman ✈ 02:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Each plane was retired individually, so yes, there was more than one.- Wolfkeeper 05:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Airplaneman ✈ 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "BA buys its Concordes outright" section, it'd be nice to know the year of most profitability. I've tagged it accordingly; if you can't find it, feel free to just remove the tag. Airplaneman ✈ 22:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea.- Wolfkeeper 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "Concorde Flight 4590 crash" section, third paragraph, After the accident, the death rate was 12.5 fatal events per million flights, more than three times that of the second worst aircraft - what is/was the second worst aircraft? Airplaneman ✈ 23:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement deleted, no reference given. Unsure of if it is even true, let alone what the sequence was. Kyteto (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "Comparison with other supersonic aircraft" section, the following: in addition the Tu-144 required parachutes to land while Concorde had sophisticated anti-lock brakes. phrase (1st paragraph, near the middle) - is "sophisticated" justifiable or even needed? Airplaneman ✈ 21:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its fairly justified. It had a braking system, in terms of complexity, originality, and materials composing, far in advance of any airliner at the time, and well beyond what most planes had even a decade after its entry into service. I would say modern aircraft such as the Airbus A380 have gotten up to the same level of complexity, but only a firm thirty years after! I would dare go so far as to call it revolutionary and pioneering, but simply stating it was sophistocated compared with most aircraft (even today!) is good enough. Kyteto (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - I'm persuaded :). Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Pop culture" section is better off as prose (see WP:EMBED for more information as well as Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists). More information on the topic would also be nice. Airplaneman ✈ 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This has now been thrown over to the relivant article Aircraft in fiction which charts fictional appearences; thus leaving this section empty bare the link itself, this is how many aircraft articles are now wired. Kyteto (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Sources seem reliable. I've added a fact tag to the "Engines" section, as the source cited doesn't cover everything stated. Airplaneman ✈ 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "Range" section, the first paragraph is wholly unsourced. Airplaneman ✈ 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This one's not a neat one to cite. It's simple process of elimination on the first statement, there's nothing that can hold a candle to it. Several of the range optimisations and enhancing features were listed and cited in the General Features section; it's a combination of stating the obvious and repetition of what has been said above in this context. Kyteto (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be great if you could refer to the sources used in the previous parts. Airplaneman ✈ 22:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "Flight characteristics" section, the phrases As aircraft lose weight from consuming fuel, they can fly at progressively higher altitudes. This is (generally) more efficient, so conventional airliners employ a stepped climb profile, where air traffic control will approve a change to a higher flight level as the flight progresses. and The flight numbers of BA’s Concorde flights to/from the USA were 001–004; these BA Concordes therefore used callsigns "Speedbird Concorde 1" through to "Speedbird Concorde 4". The service to/from Barbados, special charter flights, and test flights prior to a return to service following maintenance used the prefix "Speedbird Concorde" followed by the relevant four-digit flight number. Air France Concordes used the standard "Airfrans" callsign. need sources. Airplaneman ✈ 00:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "cabin pressurization" section, the phrases A sudden reduction in cabin pressure is hazardous to all passengers and crew. and though the typical altitude reached between London and New York was about 56,000 feet (17,000 m) need sources. Airplaneman ✈ 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "Flight characteristics" section, the last sentence of the last paragraph (Air France Concordes used the standard "Airfrans" callsign.) is unsourced. The video cited in the sentence before doesn't cover it (yes, I watched it; great clip!). Airplaneman ✈ 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First paragraph of "Concorde Flight 4590 crash" section is unsourced. Airplaneman ✈ 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "retirement" section, last paragraph, second sentence: Rob Lewis suggested that the Air France retirement of its Concorde fleet was the result of a conspiracy between Air France Chairman Jean-Cyril Spinetta and Airbus CEO Noel Forgeard, and stemmed as much from a fear of being found criminally liable under French law for future AF Concorde accidents as from simple economics. needs a source. Airplaneman ✈ 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "Air France" subsection, I've added two fact tags (one in the first paragraph and one in the last). Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One fact tag in the "British Airways" subsection, first paragraph, first sentence. Airplaneman ✈ 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a few fact tags in the "Public Perception" section. Airplaneman ✈ 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Two unsourced statements need attention in the "Records" section. Airplaneman ✈ 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Many fact tags added in the "Comparison with other supersonic aircraft" section. Airplaneman ✈ 21:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fact tags added in the "Replacements in development" section. Airplaneman ✈ 21:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "operators" section is unreferenced. Airplaneman ✈ 21:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "specifications" section could do with either a collective reference stated at the top (for example: Data retrieved from X) or a reference for each spec, to assure verifiability. Airplaneman ✈ 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All  Done Airplaneman ✈ 23:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Very comprehensive. Airplaneman ✈ 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Yup. Airplaneman ✈ 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable. Airplaneman ✈ 23:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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):
    Warning on File:Startende Concorde.jpg, but the tags are fine. Airplaneman ✈ 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Concordefire01.jpg has fair use rationale - fine. Airplaneman ✈ 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    File:ConcordeCDG.jpg could do with a crop to center the subject (although I do like the A319 at the top :D). Airplaneman ✈ 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: done by nominator. Airplaneman ✈ 23:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall: Pass! All issues have been addressed. Great work! See the end of the additional comments section for FA suggestions. Airplaneman ✈ 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:

Additional comments[edit]

  • I'll make minor changes while reading - please feel free to undo if I'm wrong. This article is great at first glance, so I may be able to make most minor changes myself. Airplaneman ✈ 23:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please verify this change. Airplaneman ✈ 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it might be best to take that bit out. The only ref to the flexing I've found is in a blog. That may well be where it came from. It's very likely indeed to be true, I vaguely recall hearing about it, but we don't have a RS for it at the moment, and the Nova reference is too vague.- Wolfkeeper 01:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be altered or removed, I've been in favour of deleting old bits of info long unsourced for a while; as there were simply hundreds of uncited statements littering this article five months ago. Even with dragging the references up from 95 to 210 it still wouldn't have come within miles of what needed citing, so much of it did get whipped away into oblivion. If it were that valuable it really should have been cited at the beginning, and realistic efforts have been made to cite it yet failed, then the only reasonable thing is to cut it out in the end; else it'll be left for another four years with the same (potentially false) certainly unverified info sticking around waiting for a good clean up. To rebuild this article these kind of actions needed to be taken, so it wouldn't be out of place by far. Rewriting or deleting is a good course of action with this sentence. Kyteto (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure; I'm fine with it either way. I guess the same goes with the many unsourced statements above. Airplaneman ✈ 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have difficulties with some of these statements; because they're more summarisations of fact/stating the obvious.
"Research into supersonic business jets continues, as of 2009": The last five paragraphs detail various ongoing projects, this appears to be intended as a summarisation of the seperate efforts; that supersonic flight is still under investigation. Those paragraphs are cited, and the projects are still/were then ongoing, so the statement is factually valid and backed up by what is driectly above it.
OK, that makes sense. Feel free to remove the fact tag. Airplaneman ✈ 04:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The only other large supersonic aircraft comparable to Concorde are strategic bombers, principally the Russian Tupolev Tu-22/Tu-22M and Tu-160 and the American B-1B Lancer": This one appears to be process of elimination. I can't name anything other than military strategic bombers in the 'large supersonic aircraft' catagory, the lack of existence of other aircraft makes this statement valid. I seriously doubt I can find a professional commentator who happens to conviniently say "There are no other large supersonic aircraft comparable to Concorde other than the Strategic Bombers used by the Cold War super powers" or something to that effect. Similar to how over on the B-52 Stratofortress article it is the largest aircraft to score an air to air kill, as there was no other aircraft (that were larger) on record that had shot down anything, rather than a writer stating that fact. I just don't think it can be worked into a normal reference, yet the statement is a highly important link and completely true, if I am to cite it, what am I supposed to aim for? Kyteto (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For this, I guess, you could cite the fact that the bombers are supersonic (the reference(s) added should state that the aircraft mentioned are supersonic). Airplaneman ✈ 04:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All outstanding and previously mentioned now appears to have been addressed. Awaiting further instructions. Kyteto (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing now looks good! Airplaneman ✈ 23:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in the "reasonably well written" section (first one) above: in the section "BA buys its Concordes outright", there is a "When?" tag that needs addressing in the last sentence of the second paragraph: British Airways's profits have been reported to be up to £50 million in the most profitable year,[when?] with a total revenue of £1.75 billion, before costs of £1 billion. Airplaneman ✈ 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And pretty much every concern without a response in the "reasonably well written" (first) section. Sorry for the three-day delay! Airplaneman ✈ 23:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your hard work, I have passed this article! I have a couple suggestions for possible future FA status: first, watch the referencing, which will need to be superb to pass FA review. As you can see, a lot of work was needed to deal with the issue here, so be sure to make sure the references stay in order! Also, minor prose tweaks might need to be made. Overall, a solid article which is clearly GA status. Congrats! Airplaneman ✈ 21:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concorde/GA2&oldid=1136635455"