Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/De Havilland Comet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

De Havilland Comet

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it is an article of sufficient depth and importance to merit further evaluating. This review has been recommended by several project members and I am prepared to undertake work in response to the criticisms that may be made of this article. It has been suggested that the article is one of the better civil aircraft-type articles to have been produced so far, and may be worthy of FA level with time, which may be a future developmental step to take - this stage would certainly be benefitial if that goal were to be sought later on. Kyteto (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments aircraft aren't my specialty so I wouldn't normally review such an article. As no one else has reviewed yet, I've given it a crack. I made a few minor tweaks and hopefully you will find those and my comments below helpful in some regard:

• the table of contents is currently creating a large amount of whitespace at the top of the article. You might consider adding a TOC limiter to it, to reduce the size. This can be done using the following code: "{{TOC limit|2}}" (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement);

Implimented; I don't like large wasted 'white space' either. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• this probably needs a citation: "It was the Comet's first deadly accident and the first fatal crash of a jet airliner";

I'll just delete the line, and it can be readded with a citation by somebody who can prove it, because I fished around for something convinent and didn't get lucky - it had enough time to jump out at me. Kyteto (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems fine since the Comet was the first jet airliner and the next jet airliners did not enter service until a few years later. Yea, the jet airliner part could be difficult to properly cite. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• in the Cohen Committee Court of Inquiry section, the second part of the second paragraph appears to be uncited. Milhist ACR citation standards would usually ask for a citation to cover this part of the paragraph also, even if it is just a duplicate;

Implimented. This was recently reorganised by copyediting by multiple editors, I've relocated the citations correctly that accurately cover the evidence and statements for that section.Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• same as above for the second part of the first paragraph in the Resumption of service section;

Implimented, see above reason for greater detail.Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• in the Accidents and incidents section: "Date from Jet Airliner Production List". Is this a typo? Should it be "Data from Jet Airliner Production List"?

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• the duplicate links script (found here), reports a number of potentially overlinked items;
• the majority of your notes have a citation, but a few (namely nos 6., 14, 17, 18, 21 and 24) don't. If you can, I suggest making this consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Making progress on the reduction of uncited notes, some have been easy fixes, others I am struggling with. Kyteto (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Your changes look good to me and I feel that I can almost support its promotion to A-class, however, I'm concerned that there are still a couple of uncited statements:

• "Large, picture window views and table seating accommodations for a row of passengers afforded a "feel of comfort and luxury" atypical of airliners of the period";
• "It was the Comet's first deadly accident." AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to find a new source, and locate more information. This has now been cited. Kyteto (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I reviewed and passed this at GA after a good deal of useful discussion with Kyteto and Bzuk; I can see it's been expanded since then. Aside from brief copyedit, some points (N.B. no image or source checks as yet) -- Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Comet, approximately the length of the later Boeing 737, carried fewer people in a significantly more spacious environment -- When you say "fewer", do you in fact mean in comparison with the 737? If so, it might be expressed more clearly as The Comet was approximately the length of the later Boeing 737, but carried fewer people in a significantly more spacious environment.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Glad to see my suggestion for a Legacy section has been taken up -- however it probably should be one heading level higher as such a discussion is not a subset of the type's operational history alone but of its entire history.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also in Legacy, In spite of the Comet being subjected to the most rigorous testing of any contemporary airliner, pressurisation and the dynamic stresses involved were not thoroughly understood at the time of the aircraft's development; nor was the concept of metal fatigue, mistakes rectified in the design and inspection of future aircraft, which could only be performed retroactively on the Comet. -- Everything's fine up to and including "concept of metal fatigue", after that the meaning or grammar (or both) seem suspect...

Implimented, now two seperated sentences. Opinions on the correction are invited. Kyteto (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Under Military Operators, the RAE isn't cited.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Under Cancelled Orders, Air India isn't cited.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Under Specifications, you should probably should add "unless otherwise cited" after Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1965–66 as you use a few citations from other than Jane's in that section.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's a lot of External Links -- no problem if they really do add to understanding of the subject but can you double-check that none in fact have been been cited in the main body, and/or they add information that's not given elsewhere in the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many external links; a few months back there were repeated IP/new editors who seemed to adore parachuting more and more external links into the section like confetti. I had managed to intergrate some of them into the article's citation system, and bin a few others, in the past. I'm fairly certain there won't be overlaps between the two, time was dedicated to ruling that factor down two months ago. I'm happy to give the repeated Flight International links the chop, as this article already had dozens of Flight articles in the citations, it certainly isn't normal to spray every Flight article out there on the Comet into the ELs just 'cause they're there. Kyteto (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

- The external links have been trimmed back to 5 links now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image check -- All images appear to have appropriate licences; none are fair-use. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Source spotcheck -- Went through the following:
  • All citations to Job, which I happen to own (#86, #96, #119) -- no issues.
  • Ditto Faith (#88, #92, #118) -- Corrected page numbers and otherwise tidied citations.
  • "Tank Test Mk 2" and "Elba Accident Developments" (#22 and #97) -- Links found the magazine but produced blank pages, which I've seen before with Flight archives sometimes; pls see if you can finetune.
  • "Comet Failures" -- All the linked page mentions is 70% of the aircraft being recovered, not the other figures, nor the January--August timeframe.
  • "Obituary: Tony Fairbrother" -- Link found The Times, but not Fairbrother's obit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Comment based on the above spotcheck -- a thorough check needs to be made of all the online sources at the very least, to ensure not just that they accurately support the text, but that they're even accessible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall begin on this task of re-checking all the links are functional/made functional tomorrow, I hope I am given the consideration of time to make fixes where they are needed. Kyteto (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The two Flight refs work for me - I've added additional cites to cover stuff that wasn't in the RAF Museum reference. I suspect that the Times obit is hidden behind a paywall for subscibers - can someone check - It should still be citeable even iif the link no longer works.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tks, struck oppose as I can see the Flight articles now as well, and because of the additional citations by Nigel. I'm still waiting on Kyteto's response re. re-checking online citations as a whole, and re. the Tony Fairbrother article -- this last one might be reconstructed via the Wayback Machine or similar, or else needs a page ref if no online version is available.

Hello there, I have been going through the citations, one by one, to make sure that they're all in a decent state - but with so manyh of them, it is hard to stay focused on which ones have been checked/fixed! I'll get to work on the Fairbrother one, see what can be turned up. 11:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• New point, I notice some citations to online sources employ retrieval dates, some don't -- all should have them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't resolve the Tony Fairbrother Times link without spending money to confirm, and I just don't have the money free to fritter on paying for the access- food alone is tight as is, let alone pouring the few coins I get into work being done for free. Searches for the quote elsewhere have turned up nought, substitution has not been possible. However, I believe every other citation is in order after spending a great deal of time sifting through the hundreds put into this article - is this the case in your judgement? Kyteto (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy with everything except the Fairbrother obit quote. I can see it's not possible to access the full obit without paying and I agree that there's no obligation for you to do that, especially with all the effort you've put into this. However I think the quote is suspect. I tried something sneaky, i.e. searching the Times site for the full quote, and got nothing. I then searched for "fairbrother" and "wheels" and it found a snippet of the obit (dated per your citation) with this quote: "The world changed as our wheels left the ground" (see here). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the quote is not reliable in line with your findings, it has been removed as a result. Kyteto (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a pity, a Google search reveals many instances of the quote as I've got it above but none are reliable sites. Perhaps it'd be worth double-checking the printed sources for an instance of it (if you haven't already done so). Don't worry about it now, though, let's get this review complete -- changing to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After searching, I found within Flight International's archives the Fairbrother quote, "I don't think it is too much to say that the world changed from the moment the Comet's wheels left the ground". It is included in a 1989 article here where it is called a "recent comment." Am re-adding this quote with source back into the article, in the quote box format as I'd used earlier. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To note, the cited quote is a trifle different--it says "Comet's wheels" not "its wheels". Also, the use of quote boxes and their placement can be debated--I wonder how encyclopedic they are--but certainly quite a few FA-class articles have them. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - Article is fully referenced now and I feel it meets the A-class criteria. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment as contributor: the article is looking great, and getting closer to FAC. Some of my major series of edits in the areas of prose, consistency, chronological order, image selection and placement, referencing, layout, details, and otherwise: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Reading through the article, it might help to elaborate further on the pressurisation rules and precedents set by the Comet, which according to sources established principles still in use for commercial jetliners today. The "Legacy" section alludes to this. Also, a spelling detail (including British English, IIRC), it's "implemented" not "implimented". This error popped up in the article earlier.

Looking further to FAC, I'd like to caution on any editorialising or opinionated statements in the article, to help keep a NPOV tone. Also, in past FACs of aircraft articles, the referencing, and the link placement in the "See also" section has been an issue, which I've attempted to gather further project guidance for here. Any contributions to help advance that discussion could head off its recurrence at FAC. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.