Talk:Honda HA-420 HondaJet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ita140188 (talk · contribs) 03:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review the article in the coming days. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Dates should follow a coherent format (either dmy or mdy)
"... range from one to 1.5-2 billion dollars." This is a strange way to report ranges. Maybe "1 to 2 billion dollars" would be clearer
Article needs some updates on information and tense. For example: "Honda plans to ramp up production to 80 units per year after March 2019." and "The new facility ... is expected to open in July 2020."
A few sentences are unreferenced, for example the one cited previously ("The new facility ... is expected to open in July 2020.")
There is an "importance?" tag in the Design section which needs to be resolved
"In May 2018, the $5.2 million (as of 2018) HondaJet Elite was revealed,[44] with an expanded performance envelope, improved interior and updated flight deck." References should go at the end of the sentence if they refer to the whole sentence as in this case.
A few references do not follow citation templates, and some ([8] and [78]) not display necessary information such as publisher. It would be best to have a standard citation format.
Just a comment: the title follows the naming conventions for aircrafts in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming, but I'm wondering if in this case it would be better to drop the manufacturer, since it is already repeated in the name of the aircraft (HondaJet). I'm not sure if this would be an improvement, but we can discuss this.

Overall, this is a well written and reasonably broad article. I think it can meet the GA requirements once the text is updated, a standard referencing format is adopted, and the few other minor comments above are addressed. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Most of comments should be fixed now, except for (a) "Estimates... range from" (given that it is "estimates range", it is IMO better to keep current wording to use exact estimate numbers as taken from refs), and (b) for article name (it is a separate issue which requires reaching consensus on the talk page). Please advise if any other changes are necessary. Ipsign (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am passing the page since it appears to meet all requirement for GA. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]