Talk:RED A03

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Unit cost?[edit]

I don't get why the unit cost is in the infobox? Seems odd to me, surely it varies from country to country and model to model? Blue windy muso (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The field is present in the infobox. It's indicative. It's referenced. The engine does not seem to available anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Marc Lacoste I'm just wondering why it has been included at all? Especially when WP:NOTCATALOGUE states,

"An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers."

Perhaps it might be better to provide a bit more context? After all, when the source describes the price as competitive they are actually quoting the company directly. Notice how the term competitive is surrounded by quotation marks,

"but Wadsworth said the company is banking on the fact that the “competitive” price of $170,000 and fuel efficiency will make it attractive for even light turbine conversions."

How about moving the price from the infobox to the main body of text and providing a bit more context?Blue windy muso (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox field complies with WP:NOTCATALOGUE: unit cost is informative but is approximate and is not here to fill an order form. It's used in many other engines and aircraft articles. You can write more in the article body, but the infobox field will remain.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Marc Lacoste Just on the issue of infoboxes, I came across this MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE it says, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)."

From what I can gather, the price should have appeared in the body of the article before being included in the infobox. I have no qualms about adding the figure to the body of the text, but I want to be certain the figure is accurate. You said yourself the figure is approximate, is there a more up to date source we could use to add in this information? It seems counterintuitive adding out of date information to the article. Blue windy muso (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, be wp:bold. I don't think it matter so much but you can try to find a more recent ref. I'm not sure you will, for an obscure engine with no news since 3 years, but you can try.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime applications[edit]

Just as an aside, was the engine ever used for maritime applications? I can see there was a prototype as per

http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/article/Lightweight-375-kW-(500-hp)-V12-Marine-Diesel11833.aspx

Did it ever make it to mass market? Blue windy muso (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno but no news since Jul 2017, it looks stillborn.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]