Talk:De Havilland Comet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, about time this got to GAR. I won't promise to get to it immediately but should be able to complete a decent review in the next few days -- as no-one else has picked it up since its nomination, I guess you can wait a bit longer knowing that someone's interested... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, had a quick scan and structurally looks okay except that the lead is too short. For an article this length you really need at least double the size of what's there now, say 2-3 decent-sized paras. If you can address that first, I'll get on to a detailed review in due course. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tks for expanding the lead. I've reviewed fully now and made a few minor copyedits to prose -- comments follow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Design

• "...in greater comfort" sounds a bit subjective even if the source supports it. Can we be more specific such as saying the Comet was more spacious, had bigger seats or greater legroom, or something like that?
• The original Comet that Cunningham test flew (Job p. 12 includes a picture of it) had large single main wheels, as opposed to the bogies typically associated with jetliners, and which were substituted on production Comets -- might be worth mentioning here, rather than just way below under Variants.

Related development

• This bit doesn't sit well here, and is much too short to justify its own section, although I appreciate that chronologically the info is in the right spot. Perhaps it should just be a final paragraph under Design; it's certainly worth keeping somewhere (I always thought the Caravelle and Comet looked like they were cut from similar cloth but didn't know about this).

Operational history

• Introduction -- "and over 50 Comets were ordered" sits oddly here, apart from the fact it's preceded by a full stop, not a comma. Also, right afterwards, "At their height" sounds strange.
• India Court of Inquiry -- don't see the point of this being a subsection; generally any section should be more than one paragraph long to justify its existence, and the information follows on naturally from the preceding para describing the accident. Respectively, I don't agree with formatting this inquiry into the section as it can be expanded, and it is a significant development in that it was the first inquiry into the design and operation of the Comet that led to specific changes, albeit not addressing the true causes of the problem of an aircraft breakup. Bzuk (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly have an issue with the subsection being retained if it's expanded to say two paras. You guys work out between you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Abell Committee Court of Inquiry -- Job (p. 11) quotes Churchill as declaring "The cost of solving the Comet mystery must be reckoned neither in money not in manpower", if you want to amplify the reference to the PM.
• Cohen Committee Court of Inquiry -- for the uninitiated, you probably should define "cycles" the first time you mention it (I assume the reference is to takeoff-and-landing cycles) No, pressurisation cycles refers to pressurisation and depressurisation as the airframe reaches higher altitude, not takeoffs and landings, presumably aircraft on test would not reach 10,000 ft where pressurisation is required.
• Resumption of service -- should link Gander so people can easily find its position in the world, given it was a refuelling stop.

Operators -- couple of general issues with this section:

• Referencing -- each item/operator should be cited

I am struggling with the references for three entries: Tasman Empire Airways, Hong Kong Airways, and Aviateca. All other civilian operators have been taken care of. Kyteto (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

None of the miltary operators is cited either... How do you think you'll go one the uncited entries? Do you want to just remove them to the talk page and we can get closer to passing this, or keep looking for a bit longer? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the three uncited civil operators; can the proof of the existence of Comets in both RAF and RCAF operations be simply by virtue of the images we have of the aircraft operating in their colours; and the discussions under Variants? I'll cite across anyhow. Kyteto (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• MOS -- the current dashes probably should be replaced by endashes; I also think this list suffers from flagcruft, but if it's been an accepted standard I guess I'll live with that... ;-)

This is looking much better since the dashes were replaced and proper sentences used -- I stand by my flag comment but won't hold up passing on that account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

• Just a suggestion but, since all items here seem to be cited from the same source, perhaps you can simply say it at the top as in Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1965–66 in the next section, and eliminate the individual citations.

All up, I think this is very good work, worthy of the saga that was this type's history. Aside from the above points, prose, referencing, coverage, structure and supporting materials all appear sound. If you can just respond to the outstanding items, I'll be happy to pass. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk, seen the new images. I think most are fine but it is looking a bit crowded in Design. Suggest you remove the flight deck shot -- it's quite dark anyway and you have a brighter cockpit image of the 4 model later in the article. I'm also not sure about this practice of putting images immediately above a heading -- I do think it's more pleasing to have them immediately underneath instead. At the very least the left-justified ones shouldn't be above a heading, because indented headings look pretty mucky. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First cockpit image removed; Ian, most of the problems in graphic location is due to the amount of space and "fixing" of the image to relevant text, which sometimes leads to unusual placements in image location. I'll keep working on it... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

Hi again guys. This seems to have been pretty stable the last few days so I take it you're done? No serious issues anymore about passing it for GA; I have been pretty tough on referencing and image clutter because I think there's enough here for you to consider a joint nom for FAC, and I'm sure all those things would come up. That said, I still think you could do with:

*Removing the Abell Committee Court of Inquiry picture -- what's a 4C got to do with that time period anyway?

*Removing one of the two images under Military Operators (the RCAF one is less aestheically pleasing IMO) since it's such a small section.

• Considering a Legacy section that focusses on the debt owed to Comet by subsequent jetliners -- I know there's material on that in Job and Faith, but your other references probably go into it too. Don't worry about it now, let's get it passed for GA but I'd look at this before FAC (happy to be involved if you like, I've love to see this get the bronze star eventually).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a couple of presentation tweaks but am ready to pass now -- well done everybody. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one (well, two really) last things(s): you need to fix the dablinks for [[Gander]] and National Airlines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Last wikilinks dabbed properly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, passing as GA! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)