Talk:Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 23:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm very much looking forward to reading this article, and will post a review over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]The article is in great shape, and my comments are pretty limited:
- What role were the Hurricanes purchased in 1938 intended to fill - were they to be used as fighters, or as fighter bombers, and were they replacing another type?
- They were in addition to obsolescent types (like the Hawker Fury) that remained in service, and other modern aircraft like Bf 109s that were also purchased around the same time. You can imagine the confusion with Hurricanes and Yugoslav Bf 109s flying against German Bf 109s... I've noted that they were deployed in the fighter/interceptor role. Do you think I need to add anything about other types?
- That does the trick for GA class, but if the sources go into greater depth it would be a good addition for A-class (where I hope this is headed) Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- They were in addition to obsolescent types (like the Hawker Fury) that remained in service, and other modern aircraft like Bf 109s that were also purchased around the same time. You can imagine the confusion with Hurricanes and Yugoslav Bf 109s flying against German Bf 109s... I've noted that they were deployed in the fighter/interceptor role. Do you think I need to add anything about other types?
- Do we know how combat ready the Hurricane-equipped units were at the time of the German invasion? (eg, were the pilots well trained, and were a high proportion of the aircraft serviceable?)
- Of the 44 aircraft purchased and built, 41 were serviceable.
Do I need to state that explicitly?I've stated that explicitly. Unfortunately the best objective source I'm aware of on such matters was the British military attache, but his reports tapered off around the time the Hurricanes went into service, so I'm not aware of any source on the quality of the pilot training. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)- Sorry, I missed that figure (which is impressively high). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of the 44 aircraft purchased and built, 41 were serviceable.
- "The complaints fell on deaf ears within the RAF, and the squadron operated Hurricanes until the end of the war." - it could be noted that while the Hurricanes were outdated, the RAF was also still using them as fighter bombers in combat at the time in Burma (not sure if they were still using them in the Mediterranean)
- I think No. 6 Squadron might have been operating MkIVs too, I'll check.
- Added a bit about No. 6 Sqn.
- Looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Added a bit about No. 6 Sqn.
- I think No. 6 Squadron might have been operating MkIVs too, I'll check.
- Are there any sources to support a "Survivors" section describing the aircraft in the Museum of Aviation in Belgrade and any others that still exist? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Added section about the example at the Museum, not aware of any other examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also looks good. I'm very pleased to pass this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Added section about the example at the Museum, not aware of any other examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
