Talk:Airbus Beluga/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Comments/queries to follow. Mark83 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	For clarity I suggest all instances where the aircraft is referred to as Beluga be change to Beluga ST. This to differentiate from Beluga XL which is also referred to multiple times in the prose. This would make things clearer. When Airbus started in 1970, road vehicles were initially used to move components and sections change to when Airbus was formed/founded etc. And the wings were always UK-manufactured, so how did they get to France - not explained (not by road). "Draw down" is not a widely recognised term is it? Surely retire would be clearer. Toulouse, France specified once - don't repeat 'France'. Same with Hamburg, Germany. each airframe reportedly took roughly three years to complete - that's inexact and WP:WTW. And we should know nearly 30 years on exactly how long each took to build. Originally a total of four aircraft were to be built along with an option for a fifth aircraft being available, which was later firmed up is redundant/should be integrated with the preceding sentence which already states that five were built. The fleet's primary task is to carry Airbus components ready for final assembly across Europe is this not clear already at that point of the article? "SATIC announced that they" - companies are singular. During the 1990s, as a result of reported inquiries to Airbus regarding the type, a niche market for selling Beluga-type aircraft to military customers and freight operators was also examined; but sales were considered 'unlikely' to take place by the late 1990s. a quibble, but could be firmed up, i.e. didn't happen. planning to replace all of the old Belugas by 2025. old is a subjective term. Why not just 'Beluga STs'. Airbus previously considered the A330-300 and A340-500, is repetition of the paragraph above. runway 04 is a bit niche/too much detail - and there only is one. So just 'runway'. Of the five aircraft to be progressively assembled, the first two were considered essential to ramping up A350 production; the remaining three are to be introduced as the A300-600 Beluga fleet retires. - as well as (in my opinion) spending too much time on a different aircraft, this sentence needs to be updated if it stays - there have now been 6 built. Is trim tank understandable to a broad audience? Despite this width, the Beluga cannot carry most fuselage parts of the Airbus A380, which are instead normally transported by ship and road. The Beluga has been used to transport some A380 components. while not contradictory, these two sentences should be combined to make the article flow better. the Beluga was formally placed into dedicated service is a bit clumsy. Just 'entered service'? Because of the article structure, as you read down the article Airbus changes from Airbus to Airbus Industrie and back again. And this has not been explained well enough - it's alluded to rather than explained (I understand it because I know the complex history, the average reader may be confused). Airbus expected this figure to double by 2017 this should be updated surely? Did that happen? Since entering service, the Beluga has been subject to several infrastructure upgrades. the article then goes on to talk about infrastructure upgrades to airports, not the aircraft. Needs to be reworded. Check overlinking - link first instance only, e.g. A340, An-225, 747, Toulouse. Countries shouldn't be linked. Could we shorten all this blue: sanctions imposed on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I suggest that "the Antonov An-124, Antonov An-225, Ilyushin Il-86, Boeing 747, Boeing 767, Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, and McDonnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster III" in the lead is too much detail. Very important for the main body, but getting into the weeds in the lead. Also in the lead - "the Super Transporter quickly proved itself to be larger, faster" is a strange phrase. It was specifically designed to be larger and faster; this was not a discovery/revelation when it entered service. General layout question - Why does 'Development' include 'and replacement'. That should come later in the article? By relocating the cockpit in this manner, loading times were reportedly - try and remove the last word - WTW. dropping to only one-third of those achieved by the Super Guppy. remove 'only' - not required. Leaning towards POV.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good referencing.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Only sample checked, but referencing looks very strong.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No concerns. One additional comment - the assembly line in Toulouse was not conveniently accessible by any of the surface methods. is correct, however "a 240-km road, connecting the city of Langon with the Airbus site at the airport Toulouse-Blagnac and specifically upgraded for the transport of A380 fuselage sections, was partly funded by the French government, which shouldered 43% of the total cost of €178 million. The road had become necessary because the capacity of the Airbus freighter Beluga was not sufficient for A380 components".[1] Interesting that this was ruled out previously but ultimately done for A380 parts. That doesn't make the article wrong, just including this for info and feel free to include it or not.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I am really unsure about most of the content of 'Operational history' - some of it seems trivial. For example In 2004, a Beluga was used to deliver relief supplies to the Indian Ocean region following widespread devastation of coastal areas by a major tsunami - what made this notable? what was carried? from what country/countries? But I'm not suggesting we elaborate, I suggest removal. Same with the Hurricane Katrina mention - really noteable?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No disptutes of note. Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All checked. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Feels strange to me that all the images are in the newest Airbus livery. There are Commons images of the aircraft wearing the older livery and one at least should be added/swapped in to better demonstrate the service history.
	7. Overall assessment.	Really strong article. Not much work required to address concerns/queries above. And I am more than happy to discuss any of them. Mark83 (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) & some additional comments Mark83 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kyteto it's been a week, so just checking in to see if you will be able to respond to my review. Thank you. Mark83 (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay, I haven't been too well as of late; I'll do what I can to respond. Not sure I'll come up with perfect adjustments to all, but I'm giving it a go right now. Would you like for me to make any replies/comments to specific points I'm having trouble with? Kyteto (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you haven't been well. To take the pressure off - I am on holiday 27 August - 09 September inclusive. We can pick this up again then? And yes, happy to discuss any specific points you wish. Mark83 (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been making various changes in line with this feedback; there is one point that stands out to me: I do feel it would be good to maintain some mention of the aircraft's use in humanitarian missions, else readers may be likely to conclude that it was never used in such a context. I did look at some other heavy airlifters to compare for such mentions. I'll try and do some wording cuts nonetheless. Kyteto (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Kyteto would you be able to run through the points above and update them as completed or not please? Otherwise I'll have to check the article again almost line by line.Mark83 (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Ok, I'll do a break-down, I did adjust numerous things to improve the article based on feedback; I may as well highlight where I haven't made much change (and why):

• "During the 1990s, as a result of reported inquiries to Airbus regarding the type, a niche market for selling Beluga-type aircraft to military customers and freight operators was also examined; but sales were considered 'unlikely' to take place by the late 1990s I haven't found a later source/one that rules this out and I didn't want to extend beyond what I have evidence of.
• "Airbus previously considered the A330-300 and A340-500, is repetition of the paragraph above." - I haven't adjusted this as it was the only mention of either the A330-300 and/or A340-500; the above sentence mentioned what it actually is based on, the A330-200.

Other than those and the previous comment, I think efforts to address the rest of the points have been made. Let me know if you'd like more detail. Kyteto (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Status?

@Kyteto and Mark83: Nothing has happened here for a month. Can this get wrapped up soon? RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith sadly, it doesn't look like this is going anywhere. @Mark83 hasn't edited since the 24th, @Kyteto hasn't since the 6th. I would love to pick up the reviewing, but without the nominator, I can't do anything. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @The Corvette ZR1 Yeah, it's time to pull the plug; I'll do that in a moment. Thanks for offering to pick this up. RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm active - not sure what to say - I've taken action on all the points raised, either directly on the article itself or as talking points on this same page - not sure what's left outstanding. This has been protracted, but I'm honestly not sure what to do here at this point besides staring at the article for hours hoping to think up some improvement - nothing's been coming up. Kyteto (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A few points

• The protracted nature of this is on both sides - i've done my fair share of waiting for progress.
• Kyteto hasn't been clear what is actioned and what is not. I have to do a full review again to check all the points.
• Having said that, it has been a bit too long. Life outside Wikipedia has got in the way. Apologies
• I will finish my update this week. Mark83 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) & edited Mark83 (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mark83 my apologies if this seems harsh, but the time to respond was when I pinged you a week ago. It's unfair to the your fellow editors to just let this drag out so long. I've already declared this review abandoned and The Corvette ZR1 has volunteered to pick it up, which I assume he will do soon. If the problem is that Kyteto hasn't been responding to the review, then it needs to be closed as a failed nomination, with the possibility of resubmitting later when they have more time to work on it. Letting it continue to drag out (it's already been over three months) just isn't an option. RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I accept the review has gone on too long. I do not accept you are justified in being annoyed about a lack of reply since the 24th. I have not been on Wikipedia as much recently due to real life commitments. Nevertheless, the offer to wrap this up this week following the prompt was a sincere one to finish up what I had started (which was a time consuming and through review).

But thank you @The Corvette ZR1 for picking this up.

And thanks @Kyteto for your updates following my review and the totality of your work on this article. Mark83 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mark83 you have my apologies for my report on the 25th October was being insufficiently clear. I consider that all points have been addressed, save for three that I have specifically wrote about. To summarise those three, they are 1. Eliminating the only mention of humanitarian activities was something I wanted to discuss 2. "Airbus previously considered the A330-300 and A340-500, is repetition of the paragraph above." - These were the only mentions of the A330-300 and/or A340-500 3. "During the 1990s, as a result of reported inquiries to Airbus regarding the type, a niche market for selling Beluga-type aircraft to military customers and freight operators was also examined; but sales were considered 'unlikely' to take place by the late 1990s" I haven't found a newer source covering this to update from. Kyteto (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As per the 25th report, let me know if you'd like more detail/summarising/answer a point or question. Kyteto (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith this doesn't seem to be progressing, but you don't seem to mind now? Are you more worried about GA stats than exploring options for seeing GARs progressed? Mark83 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I am up for progressing this, if that counts for anything. Kyteto (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mark83 I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but my only goal here is to get things unstuck. I've been working my way through the long backlog of stalled GA reviews, prodding people (on both sides) to pick up reviews that aren't making any progress and closing out those where I haven't been able to get things moving. If you guys want to pick this up again and complete the review, I would consider that a good outcome. But please understand that this has been dragging on for four months, so something really needs to happen soon. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've received multiple status updates on my talk page but no updates in the last 10 days here - am I missing an update here? There were only three outstanding questions I raised and those points don't seem have been looked at. Kyteto (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)