Talk:Blackshape Prime

Recent edits

@VarinVII: I have had to revert your recent edits by to this article for several reasons.

First off it replaced cited text with uncited text. As per WP:BURDEN All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Second in some place it made claims and cited refs, but the refs did not support the claims made. A example is the added sentence "The Prime's exterior is largely unchanged from the Millennium Master's" which was cited to https://blackshapeaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Prime_ENG0722.08.pdf which says nothing of the sort. This seem to be WP:OR or just personal opinion.

Thirdly much of the text added is excessively WP:PROMOTIONAL, with wording like "The interior of the prime features a bubble canopy with excellent visibility", "The BK100 iS is the prime's top tier powerplant spec" and "The BK100 T features the Rotax 914UL, one of the prime's two premium powerplant options, featuring a 1450 feet/min climb speed and 115hp. At max cruise speed the planes hits a whopping 173mph, with a 189mph never exceed speed." This all reads like it was written by the company marketing department, as it is not encyclopedic writing.

Since your only edits to Wikipedia are to this article, I have to ask if you are working for the company and in some conflict of interest?

Regardless, these are additions are so problematic, before you make any further changes to the article, please propose them here on the talk page, with proper references provided and we will work on how to fix the wording first so that it does not read a like a company brochure.- Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

First off, no, I do not work for blackshape, the reason my only edits are to this article are because I was researching the plane and figured the wikipedia article looked quite bleak. Second, "The Prime's exterior is largely unchanged from the Millennium Master's" should have been linked to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa8hU-N08aQ, and that is my mistake and I apologize for it. Thirdly, with "The interior of the prime features a bubble canopy with excellent visibility" I was attempting to just describe how the cockpit had good visibility, however it did come out sounding quite promotional. Would something along the lines of "The interior of the prime features a bubble canopy with a wide degree of visibility." work better? With "top tier powerplant spec" and "premium powerplant option" I was just attempting to say, this is an option, not standard. I apologize for my interruption of this article, and I hope that I may contribute in a better way going forwards. -VarinVII (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and explaining here. The article can use expanding, but we need to work new sections in and not just removed sourced text plus make the wording less promotional in tone. If you want you can put your proposed additions here on the talk page and we can discuss and edit them before they get put into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

How would something along these lines be?

Exterior

The Prime's exterior is largely unchanged from the Millennium Master's. The fuselage is built mainly from pre-peg carbon fibre, while the main structural frame is built from aluminium and steel. The design features swept wings in a low mount configuration, with double slotted flaps. The full wingspan is 26ft, with 107.2 sq ft of total surface area. The craft is not aerobatic certified, however it can withstand stresses of up to +4g/-2g and 9.72lb/sq ft wing load force. The undersides of the wings also feature the crafts retractable landing gear, installed in a trike configuration. The Plane is often seen in military style paint jobs, such as the one pictured below.

(image)

Cites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa8hU-N08aQ

https://blackshapeaircraft.com/piloting-pleasure/prime/

http://plaaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/AOPA.pdf

I hope this is better then what i had written previously, best regards -VarinVII (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The refs are fine. I can rework that text to eliminate the WP:COLLOQUIALISMS and such (ie we don't refer to aircraft as "craft" or "planes"), but then there is then point that it duplicates the existing text we already have about 5O% or so. I would instead suggest we take your new information and merge that into the existing description. I can show you what that looks like, if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know those were not usable terms. However on the duplication topic, I was thinking to try to expand it into the Exterior, Interior, Mechanics format to replace the design and developments section, however if you think it would be better to merge the two I would be onboard. VarinVII (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't use informal or colloquial language in the encyclopedia, so "aircraft", "airplane" (US) or "aeroplane" (UK) is fine, but not "plane" etc. We also use a standard aircraft page layout for all aircraft type article, as detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content to give all 30,000 aircraft type articles a uniform look and feel for the readers' benefit. That does not preclude sub-section headings, but we normally only employ those for sub-sections with more than one paragraph, otherwise they get left in the main section, such as "Design".

I think it might just save us some time here if you were going to propose all the text you had already added, if I just take your text, put it into the page layout, use encyclopedic terminology, clean up the promotional language and add the references in as footnotes and then you can see how that all looks. I'll leave a note back here when I am done and you can see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've already rewritten the majority of it to be more formal, not quite sure if it's up to wiki standards but here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iP_G8Eh1SZZAM40YgGH8159QE2hKoGqBNYcxskQCMA4/edit?usp=sharing

-VarinVII (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay that helps as a starting point, although we can't use the photos, obviously. I can take your text from there and incorporate it with the existing text, using the page layout and adding the refs as footnotes and you can see how that looks. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I have incorporated all of your text that can be sourced to the refs, organized and reworded, converted to metric first. Your quote on the seats didn't seem to be in any of the refs you provided, so I had to omit it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you man. Looks great, never knew how many rules went into a wikipedia article. I may add some stuff later on, but I think this is good for now. Thanks for the help mate. -VarinVII (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad that you thought it was actually helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)