Talk:Concorde/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 04:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Working Will aim to complete the review in the next couple of days. –Grondemar 04:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's my review. Sorry for taking so long.

• The lead needs to be expanded and rewritten to be a better summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for guidance.
• In the Development section: "In the late 1950s, the United Kingdom, France, United States and Soviet Union were considering developing supersonic transport." You should explain why; this is important background information.
• Why is http://www.rpec.co.uk/engineerswalk/ar_walk.html a reliable source?
• There are many, many parts of the article that are uncited. I added tags where I felt a citation was appropriate. The Flight characteristics section has only one citation total.
• It would be nice to remove the many (statements in parentheses) and incorporate them into the text; the general features section has a especially large number of them.
• File:Concorde under Verrazano Bridge.jpg: The licensing statement says: This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright notice "© 2004 Metropolitan Transportation Authority" is included. However, the link provided to substantiate the copyright assertion is dead. I think this needs to go through WP:OTRS to verify the MTA's permission.

Due to the large number of needed citations, I don't think this article can be improved to meet the GA criteria within the normal seven-day hold period. Therefore, I am failing the article at this time. It can be resubmitted when the above issues are addressed.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks. –Grondemar 06:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)