Talk:1945 Japan–Washington flight/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC) GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM[reply]
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

This one proved to be an interesting read, so I opted to do the GAN review. I didn't check to see if you were in the cup or not (I am, BTW), but I'll note here that pretty much all of the work for this article was done in 2011. Mind you I've seen enough in two weeks of GANs to know that the whole thing is helplessly gamed, but I'm just saying for my own conscience that this wasn't really done in 2012.

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

- I'm not a fan of the order of the sections. I'd personally take the "Aircraft and men" section and put it in between "Preperation" and "Flight". Further, since aircraft 2 has ten times as much information as the other two, I'd remove the subsections from "Aircraft and men" and just do it as three paragraphs.

- Why is there so much information on the second aircraft and so little on the other two?

- The article needs a copyedit for readability. There's a lot of tightly packed information, and sometimes it's just not clear as to what's being said. Case in point "near sea level for maximum lift,", jammed into the middle of a sentence next to Blanchard's picture. I'm sure that there's some meaning to that sentence fragment, but I have no idea what it is. There are a lot of long sentences that are held together with mdashes and semicolons, that could benefit from being broken up into two or more more clearly worded stand alone sentences.

b. MoS compliance:

Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:

Needs work

- I think you're over-citing. Take the subsection "Number 1". There are four sentences in that section, each of which ends with a citation to the exact same source. No other source is used in that section. Why, exactly, did you not just place one citation to that source at the end of the paragraph?

b. proper citation use:

Needs work

- I do not consider source 4 (the advertisement) to be a reliable source. Surely you can find a newspaper clipping that has the same information, and use that instead. Additionally, the link you gave, (www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938 - 3166.html), takes me to a page that does not back up the information you cited. www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938 - 3165.html does, however (note the last numeral before .html).

- I do not consider source 5 (findlocalweather.com) to be a reliable source. That being said, I'd be willing to entertain arguements to the contrary.

c. no original research:

Acceptable www.aviation-spotting.weebly.com

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects:

Question

- (repeated from 1a) Why is there so much information on the second aircraft and so little on the other two?

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

- There is a fair bit of extranious information, such as the quote about Potts taking the train, and the infomation about the Pacusan Dreamboat flight, that I personally would have not included. None of it is severe enough for me to make an issue of it, however I might CE it out if I'm the one that winds up performing the CE.

4. Neutral: Needs work

- "With that inauspicious beginning to U.S.–Japan relations in the area," is not neutral language; inauspicious is a value judgement. Please reword this.

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct:

Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned:

Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer

a. images have alt texts:

Acceptable

- The only one that really needed an alt, IMO, is File:1945 Japan US flight map.jpg. It didn't have one, so I did it myself.

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Question

- This is just a personal preference, but I personally prefer it when sources are behind only periods or semicolons, and not commas. This is because, at least in my experience, there is a tendancy to make a full stop (pause) when you see a source bracket, and commas are treated as short/partial stops. It's up to you if you want to change them or not, and has no bearing on the passing of this GAN, but I personally would move the citations after commas to the periods or semicolons that followed them.

- You use mdashes. I hate mdashes. This is, again, a personal preference, and this one I really don't expect you to change/act on, I'm just letting you know because when I edit articles I tend to remove mdashes as I go, and I tend to do at least some CE during GANs.

Comments after the initial review:

Lots of minor issues. I absolutely will not pass this without a CE, as it needs one, but there's nothing that I'd call 'earth-shattering' or 'critical' that needs doing, with the possible exception of the things listed under 2b. I expect that this will pass as an eventual result of this GAN, but for now I'm placing it on hold. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Yes, I will perform a copyedit along the lines you suggest. I am a never-before participant in this year's WikiCup and I know that the majority of this article was developed before 2012. Yes, I use em dashes—I like them. :D

Thanks for the alt text. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specific fixes

I moved the Aircraft and men section up as suggested.
I deleted the level three headers in Aircraft and men. I don't know exactly why there is so little information available about the first and third airplanes, but we can blame Lt. Potts for the great detail about No. 2.
Sea level lift defined: there is denser air down at sea level, giving more lift.
I found a much better cite for the 1938 RAF distance record.
I reduced over-citing.
I moved refs to the ends of sentences.
I removed the word "inauspicious" and tweaked the text to adjust. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet done

I have not yet split any of the longer sentences containing multiple thoughts.
I don't know what would be acceptable as a source saying the distance from Chitose to Chicago is 5,840 miles. The website wwwfindlocalweather.com is all I could get, though there is also http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distanceresult.html?p1=622&p2=64 for general Sapporo and Chicago rather than current Camp Higashi-Chitose to current Chicago Midway Airport. None of the book or newspaper accounts say how far it is, which I find a shocking lapse. Does WP:CALC suggest an answer? Perhaps we can simply state the distance without a cite.
I have not removed any of the extraneous stuff such as Potts prefering the train, which I thought added a bit of color. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found some more refs

In hunting for a replacement reference I found a few more book cites with pertinent information about the flight. I may work some of that into the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I suppose that the findlocalweather is acceptable if there's nothing else. I agree that it is strange that you can't find something better, and don't think we should make a less accurate statement. As for the Potts thing, leave it, I guess. The CE I still want to see done, and I'll wait on doing a final read until you tell me you're done with the CE and the stuff from the book. Just leave a message here or at my talk page to that effect. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added some text and cites to slightly expand the article; nothing that significantly changes or refutes previous text. I'm now done poking at the article unless you have specific concerns. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed a CE and am confident that this is now ready for promotion. As such:

PROMOTED Sven Manguard Wha? 22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fine review! Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]