Talk:Platt-LePage XR-1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 02:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Comments
1. "Platt-LePage's submission was judged superior to its competitors" - which of the competitors' models was the XR-1 superior to? And how was it superior? Add a little clarity or links, if possible.
  Done - added a footnote detailing the other submissions; I can't come across exactly how the Army judged the XR-1 superior, just that it did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. "the aircraft was not completed until three months later than the contract schedule" - any idea why this was the case?
  Done - Can't find anything about exactly why there were delays, but I did find that the delays spurred Sikorsky receiving an Army contract, so I've added that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. "With the worst of the bugs believed to be worked out," - calling them 'bugs' seems a little unencyclopedic.
  Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. "improved helicopters, such as Sikorsky's XR-4, were becoming available" - how was the XR-4 improved over the XR-1?
  Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Financial figures would be good too, ie cost of the contract or renegotiations, cost of the models, projected production cost etc.
  Done There's contradictorary information in the sources - the Smithsonian says the intial contract was "nearly $500,000", while Francillon's book gives a number just under $200,000 and notes that contract change orders increased the amount. It seems like the Smithsonian number is the final amount (and is likely more accurate), so I've used that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Has plenty of refs.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass Seems to cover the subject well.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass
It is stable:
Pass
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Four images.
Overall:
On Hold pending changes. It could stand a copy edit but other than that it meets the GA requirements as I see them. —Ed!^(talk) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to this soon as I can, my internet access is a bit spotty at the moment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, been busy and had connection problems. Will get to this ASAP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I am now passing the article. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]