Talk:Curtiss XBTC/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been a while! ♦ jaguar 11:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It has! But I'm sure that the other GAN subject areas were receiving the benefits of your attentions even if I wasn't.

Lead

• "The Curtiss XBTC was an prototype" - 'a' prototype
• "for the United States Navy (USN)" - 'USN' isn't mentioned again in the article's body, it's probably best to lose it
• The lead summarises the article per WP:LEAD, taking in account the article's short length

Design and development

• "In January 1942 the Navy" - write out United States Navy in the first instance
  • But it's been the only navy mentioned thus far, so pretty minimal possibility of confusion, IMO.
• "carrier-capable VSB (Scout Bomber)" - perhaps link scout plane. Also does it need to be capitalised?
  • Good idea for the link. I'm inclined to keep the caps because that's how it's referenced in the sources. Probably because it was a formal program in USN naval doctrine
• "but photographs of the mockup dated December are available" - dated from December (1942?)
  • Yep, as mentioned in the previous para
• "was lengthened by 2 ft (0.6 m)" - in all other cases metric is placed first
  • Ummm, really? Only the 20 mm measurement in the first para of the design section. The American military has used a mix to imperial and metric measurement ever since we bought a lot of French artillery during WWI. So both 4.5-inch and 155 mm guns in service at the same time.
• "XBTC-2s consisted of four 20 mm autocannon" - convert to imperial
• "that could handle ordnance up 1,600 pounds in weight" - same here
• "hardpoints were stressed to carry weapons weighing up to 1,000 pounds" - and here
• "after a landing accident with the first prototype on 3 March" - of what year? 1945?
  • Yep, as mentioned two (long) sentences earlier
• "The United States Army Air Forces assigned the designation" - include abbreviation (USAAF)
  • Better I think to replace the abbreviation with a pronoun

Other

• Would it be possible to move the Variants or Operators subsections to the infobox? I'm not sure if the infobox has a field for that or if this is the norm for aircraft articles. Like I said it's been a while!
  • The infobox isn't set up for it. Better, IMO, to keep the infoboxes as short as is reasonable considering that I've had a few complaints about them dominating short-lived ship articles.

This is a solid article which shows its comprehensiveness considering it was short-lived prototype. I enjoyed reading it. The sources are also good and I can see no other issues. Once the above are clarified we can get this promoted. ♦ jaguar 12:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Good to see back here. I'm sure that I'll have more articles available for you if you're of a mind to check back every so often!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll review your articles as soon as you can throw them out. I usually get mixed up with what measurement goes first. UK/US has imperial first, yet I've seen other military articles use metric first. Anyway, with those minor issues addressed I'll be happy to promote this! ♦ jaguar 23:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)