Talk:Arsenal VG 90/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article. I will start a review very soon. simongraham (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

• Well written

The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout etc.

• Verifiable

It contains a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

All inline citations are from reliable sources.

It contains no original research.

It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

• Broad in its coverage

It addresses the main aspects of the topic.

It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Illustrated

Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

The article is stable. Last reviewed as Start in 2017 but subsequently improved by Sturmvogel 66, who is now responsible for 56.9% of the text (38.9% contributed by Rlandmann), the article covers an aircraft that was only flown in prototype form so information is limited compared to, for example, that available for the Hawker Hunter.

• Images are marked as public domain.
• I can only see one grammar correction: "Many years later, it was discovered in the scrapyard at Cazaux Air Base, but could not be restored and were scrapped in July 1978" should read "...was scrapped..."
• The article relies on only two sources. There are articles in 'Air Pictorial, Aviation Magazine international and Flight International that also give some information that could be useful in providing different points of view. I suggest, as this is a French product, that it could be worth looking at French literature. For example, Lamouche has a page on the aircraft and its predecessor in Essais et prototypes de l'aviation française and Noetinger has a whole chapter in his 2008 book Drames et frayeurs aux essais en vol. I suggest using some of these to add to the article. Some of these are available on Google books.
  • Maybe your Google fu is better than mine, but I cannot find any links to articles on the aircraft in the magazines that you mention. Google books has only snippets from the French-language books that you mention. My normal goto aviation history magazines, Air International and Air Enthusiast, are annoyingly bereft of any significant mention of any of the French prototypes from this period. And I haven't found anything in Avions either, although it doesn't seem to cover much, if at all, of anything past WW2. There are no copies of either French book available to borrow in the US, but I've ordered them both. Delivery will take three weeks or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• While I appreciate that that the aircraft never entered service, convention is that there should be a section on Operators.
• Taylor's book is mentioned in the References but not in the text. I believe that it should either have an inline reference or be included in a section called Further reading.

Comments

• The lead is well written but feels short, for example, compared to the Blackburn Firecrest, an aircraft of a similar age that was also only produced in very small numbers. I suggest adding something that would elicit more interest in the aircraft like: "The first prototype initially flew in September 1949 and during flight trials in May 1950 became the fastest French aircraft with a speed of Mach 0.845."
  • I'm leery of adding too much detail to the lede as it's supposed to summarize the article. See if my changes are satisfactory.
    • I do agree with you. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who only read the lede. simongraham (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think that it would be useful to have some background on the competition for which the aircraft was designed. Friedman's Carrier Air Power has some information. Williams and Gustin in Flying Guns of the Modern Era say that ultimately the specification was fulfilled by the Aquilon. I think that would be worth mentioning.
  • Added to the lede.
    • Great. Could it be mentioned in the body with a citation please. simongraham (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• I suggest adding some entries under "Similar aircraft" like the contemporary Hawker P.1052.
• I suggest also adding any relevant lists; for example, List of fighter aircraft.

I note that there is also an article on the contemporary Nord 2200 which is also a Good Article Nominee so some of these suggestions may be carried over to that one too. simongraham (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Have you completed all your changes from the additional sources please? simongraham (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: That looks excellent. Congratulations on another Good Article. simongraham (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.