Talk:Lockheed Senior Prom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 04:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Ooh, secrets. I can see from the outset that this isn't a huge article, but given its black project status, that's completely understandable; I've been down that road before.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Nothing major to be seen to, but I've listed a few changes I would make if I was the one writing this, they're all pretty optional so don't worry about it if you disagree.
Skunk Works could be wikilinked on its first mention post-lead; given the article's length I can see why you've opted not to though.
If you're after some additional padding, it wouldn't hurt to devote a sentence to explaining how the faceted shape of Have Blue works.
"a total of six aircraft were built, which completed a total of 14 flights over the duration of the testing program" -> There are very few numbers in this article that aren't currency amounts or dates, so I would consider it safe to use "fourteen" instead of "14", although I'm aware both are applicable. The only other numerals used for measurement or quantity here are the 500/150 for distances, and that's a tenfold increase in scale so it doesn't seem out of place. I would consider the improvement in flow that would arise from matching "six" to "fourteen" to be worth the change, but I'm not going to put my foot down over it.
Again, a bit of relevant padding might be gained from giving known measurements of the size and volume of the AGM-129 ACM and the B-1's internal bay respectively, as a sense of scale might prove useful.
"Reportedly capable of flying within 500 feet (150 m) of a SPS-13 radar without generating a discernable return," -> That sentence just stops midway through. Either rewrite it to stand on its own or finish it off with whatever was intended to follow.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
It might seem duplicative but I don't think it would hurt to expand the lead a little. Even an extra sentence summarising the Groom Lake test location, the number built and the number of test flights would help.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
The sources used seem fine to me. I'm not convinced that page number refs need a full-stop after the number, but if it turns out to be a common enough practice then I'll overlook it happily enough. I would, however, recommend a space between the "p." or "pp." abbreviations and the numerals though.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Seems fine. If possible in the future, I'd propose splitting "testing" and "cancellation" into their own headings but that'll only be viable if further information is released.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Can't fault neutrality, there's not really anything here that could be truly subjective anyway.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is fine, and the article doesn't seem likely to be unstable for the foreseeable future either.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
N/A. File:Lockheed Have Blue.jpg or File:DC-130 mounted Firebees DN-SC-85-06043.jpg seem like they could be added with a suitable caption to explain their relevance; I'm leaning towards the idea of including a picture of some sort simply because this sort of black project thing can read quite dryly without something concrete as a visual reference point.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There's no major concerns for this one, so I'm mostly just keeping this open on hold to hear your opinion on some of these matters. Criteria 1A, 2A and 6B do have points that should be met, either with fixes or by assuaging my own concerns, but the majority of the points above are more opinion than problem. Interesting article, by the way, glad I reviewed it. GRAPPLE X 04:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast review! I've made most of the tweaks suggested above. The size of the B-1's bomb bay didn't seem especially relevant since the actual size of SENIOR PROM itself isn't known, but I did add a bit about the details that made the AGM-129 fit vs. Prom. And thanks for catching that stray comma! I personally prefer no periods after the page numbers but most articles I've seen style it that way. As for pics, the HAVE BLUE pic you suggested isn't free so it would be dubious using it in a second article, while the DC-130 pic was a bit large and garishly bright, so I selected an alternative, pd-usaf, HAVE BLUE pic for illustrative purposes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally didn't notice that the first picture was non-free, glad I didn't add it off my own bat. I was thinking that, since Prom's size is unknown, knowing the size of something deemed too small to carry it might help a reader conceive a possible scale, but it's not really important. I think the article's looking nicer now; even just the simple addition of an image creates the illusion of a fuller page and helps presentation. I'm going to pass this one now, but if you find anything else at all on the project, definitely bung in it as soon as. Well done on this one! GRAPPLE X 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I looked around for B-1 bomb bay size but can't find diameter (one bay is 40' long the other 25', but that's the B-1B with its fixed by treaty bulkhead...). And will do if anything pops up! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]