Talk:Handley Page Victor/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I'll get to this later today. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- What makes http://britains-smallwars.com and http://www.214squadron.org.uk/ reliable?
The source for #65 makes no reference to high-speed taxiing demos.
- What makes http://britains-smallwars.com and http://www.214squadron.org.uk/ reliable?
- A. References to sources:
- The home page of the source for #65 features an image of XM715 with the caption "XM715 powering up for a fast taxi run at Bruntingthorpe", and the linked page to XL231 states that "XL231 carries out occasional taxi runs at special events when they have enough money for fuel." --TransientVoyager (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Quite right, I missed the caption. My apologies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- If http://www.214squadron.org.uk/ isn't sound, would any of the following sources be more suitable/acceptable as a replacement :
- The Eastern Daily Press, UK Serials or Flickr? --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Barnes (p. 525) mentions the collision, giving the date, the Victor serial number and the location, but not the casualties or the serial number of the Canberra.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The sources must meet WP:RS and WP:V. The three alternatives would suffice, although they're best from left to right in order. Perhaps a double cite with Barnes and whichever one provides the info that Barnes lacks.
- OK, what about the britains-smallwars.com cite? Can we find a better source?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Barnes mentions several detachments of Victor B1As to Singapore (from 10, 15, 55 and 57 Sqds) in 64–65 to deter Communist guerillas, but not being bombed up ready for operational missions. Fraser-Mitchell has a photo caption referring to 57 Sqn Victors being sent to Singapore in 64 to support operations against the Indonesians. Perhaps one of the more modern book sources has more details (particularly the bits of the Osprey book which cannot be seen from Google books).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to replace the current article entry with the information given by Barnes, and re-add the stuff from britains-smallwars.com when a better source comes to light. --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Do it and we're done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Borneo stuff now trimmed back to what can be verified.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Do it and we're done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to replace the current article entry with the information given by Barnes, and re-add the stuff from britains-smallwars.com when a better source comes to light. --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Barnes mentions several detachments of Victor B1As to Singapore (from 10, 15, 55 and 57 Sqds) in 64–65 to deter Communist guerillas, but not being bombed up ready for operational missions. Fraser-Mitchell has a photo caption referring to 57 Sqn Victors being sent to Singapore in 64 to support operations against the Indonesians. Perhaps one of the more modern book sources has more details (particularly the bits of the Osprey book which cannot be seen from Google books).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, what about the britains-smallwars.com cite? Can we find a better source?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The sources must meet WP:RS and WP:V. The three alternatives would suffice, although they're best from left to right in order. Perhaps a double cite with Barnes and whichever one provides the info that Barnes lacks.
- Barnes (p. 525) mentions the collision, giving the date, the Victor serial number and the location, but not the casualties or the serial number of the Canberra.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Fraser-Mitchell needs an ISSN.
- C. No original research:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Add link to 55 Squadron in the tanker section. When were the B.1A, B.2 and B.2 SR developed? This needs to be added to the design and development section. Has anybody seen Barry Jones' V-bombers: Valiant, Vulcan and Victor? It might have some useful info.
- A. Major aspects:
- Dates added for B1A, B2 and SR.2.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- 55 Squadron linked --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- B. Focused:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- The picture of the B.2 from the Imp. War Museum (RAF T 4865) isn't 50 years old yet and needs to be removed. The same may be true for RAF T 6171, depending on when it was actually taken.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Yes, they do seem a bit iffy (the uploader was possibly 10 years out in his reckoning, and for one of them gave the wrong year in which the photo was taken); both commented out in case they can be rescued at some time. --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: