Wikipedia:Peer review/Ilyushin Il-86/archive1

Ilyushin Il-86

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it can obtain Featured Article status. I would like to know what others think of it so far, what they think is missing or incomplete (such as illustrations, perhaps), and what recommendations for additions or deletions they would like to make.

Thank you in advance. Peter Skipp (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Style! Sometimes it's too verbose for a technical subject: "doctrinal intransigence", "intractability of the powerplant", "compartmentalisation of a design bureau"; sometimes too technical: "six-light flightdeck" (what is it?). What is "aerodynamic amity of a wing"? Is "Tu-154 an airliner built to high technology principles", really, and what principles? Too many transliterations that (if necessary at all) would rather be placed in footnotes. Granted, I'm not a native English speaker, but it's still a very (unnecessarily) difficult reading. It should be refactored from scratch: keep it simple. NVO (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, NVO! I addressed some of your points in an edit today. A thorough subedit is pending. Peter Skipp (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Lists should be converted to prose whenever possible; alternatively, you could split them off into separate articles.
• The references need to be cleaned up.
• Per WP:MOSBOLD, "Bolded headings, though possible, will appear especially bold, and are not appropriate." Convert them to section headings.
• Watch the POV language: "overwhelmingly", "very", "called for ingenuity", etc.
• The prose needs attention from a copy-editor. There are redundancies, awkward sentences, and MOS breaches.
• Date linking is now deprecated by the MOS.
• "Unusually for a Soviet airliner, the Il-86 saw very limited military service." This needs a source.
• Were there variants of the aircraft? How about further developments?

Overall, this article is not ready to be submitted to FAC. It needs significant cleanup. I suggest fixing the style of the article and finding someone new to go over the prose and then nominating the article for GA status. Good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dabomb87! I addressed some of the points you make in an edit today. A subedit is pending as pointed out above in the reply to NVO. Peter Skipp (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Review by Ruslik. I have some comments:

1) The lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD. It is too short—four paragraph lead is warranted for this article. It also does not summarize the article. The second paragraph is too ideologically laden and should be rewritten to reflect what is the article actually says about aircraft development.

2) Try to avoid idelogically laden POV statements like: "was restoring political positions lost (along with Yakovlev, in favour of Tupolev and Antonov) amid the anti-Stalinism of the Khrushchev era" or "Ardent controversy was known in Western aeronautical circles but entrenched doctrinal intransigence was typical most of all of Soviet ideology which propounded the idea that there was a single "scientifically-correct" solution for every problem." These sentences add nothing to the article, which should be about the aircraft, not about the Soviet ideology of that time.

3) The reflist is unsatisfactory: every reference must have title, url, author, publisher and date information. It is better to use templates.

4) The list of opertator needs an overhaul. Russia has three entries (the second unnamed entry, the named entry in the middle and an additional one for the airforce), which should be merged. Soviet union also has two entries. The first entry (for Armenia) is unnamed. The lists of airlines in each country should be converted into plain text, because current column format consumes too much space.

5) The table must have a citation for every parameter.

6) Abbreviations like TsAGI need to be explained.

In the present the article does not satisfies even GA-criteria and needs much work. Ruslik (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruslik! I made two edits addressing points you make. I have to subedit the article to clean it up and make it flow better. I feel the Soviet/ideological aspects are very important; they had a significant influence on the Il-86. I do take your point, and those of NVO and Dabomb87 on board, however, and will attempt to remove the non-neutral POV while retaining the sense. This will take some time to elaborate. I do thank all of you very much for taking the time to review the article and write down your opinions. Peter Skipp (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)