Jump to content

Talk:Platt-LePage XR-1/GA1

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:Ed!(talk) 02:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Comments
    1. "Platt-LePage's submission was judged superior to its competitors" - which of the competitors' models was the XR-1 superior to? And how was it superior? Add a little clarity or links, if possible.
       Done - added a footnote detailing the other submissions; I can't come across exactly how the Army judged the XR-1 superior, just that it did. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "the aircraft was not completed until three months later than the contract schedule" - any idea why this was the case?
       Done - Can't find anything about exactly why there were delays, but I did find that the delays spurred Sikorsky receiving an Army contract, so I've added that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "With the worst of the bugs believed to be worked out," - calling them 'bugs' seems a little unencyclopedic.
       Done - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "improved helicopters, such as Sikorsky's XR-4, were becoming available" - how was the XR-4 improved over the XR-1?
       Done - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Financial figures would be good too, ie cost of the contract or renegotiations, cost of the models, projected production cost etc.
       Done There's contradictorary information in the sources - the Smithsonian says the intial contract was "nearly $500,000", while Francillon's book gives a number just under $200,000 and notes that contract change orders increased the amount. It seems like the Smithsonian number is the final amount (and is likely more accurate), so I've used that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass Has plenty of refs.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass Seems to cover the subject well.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass
  5. It is stable:
    Pass
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass Four images.
  7. Overall:
    On Hold pending changes. It could stand a copy edit but other than that it meets the GA requirements as I see them. —Ed!(talk) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I am now passing the article. Well done! —Ed!(talk) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]