Talk:Supermarine Swan/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Mostly there - placed on hold for some copyedits and an image license issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- File:The Supermarine Swan behind Supermarine staff during the visit to Southampton of the Prince of Wales (June 1924).jpg is not appropriately licensed - there is no evidence that the image is actually under a Creative Commons license.
- Licencing information amended, I believe the photograph is acceptable due to its age. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Reconnaissance/Passenger
should not be capitalized.
- Sorted. AM
- The Supermarine Southampton seems to be a successor, not a variant.
- Done. AM
- Several run-on sentences that need correction, most notably
The Supermarine Swan was a wooden biplane...
- Sorted. AM
- Add the
's
to artist's impression
- Done. AM
- "
was retracted more speedily
: more speedily than what?
- Now clarified. AM
His proposals were not taken up...
: perhaps clarify that the Southampton was derived from the Swan.
- Done. AM
- The date of 9 June is given in two different sentences - once as the loan date, the other as entering service. I would recommend rewording these sentences to clarify the order of events - were the loan and entering service separate events, or one and the same?
- They were the same thing, text amended to avoid potential confusion.Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Given there were only two operators, the "Operators" section seems superfluous.
- Agreed. Section cut (WP:AIRMOS allows editorial scope here). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that any of the "See also" section is needed. Certainly the first three links should be removed per MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN, and I don't see how a list of all flying boats ever made is particularly relevant. That's what categories are for.
- Agreed. The section is a fairly common feature of aircraft articles, but its inclusion isn't universal. Text now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- "Parliament" is misspelled in source 11.
- Done. AM
- Well-written
- Verifiable with no original research
- Broad in its coverage
- Neutral
- Stable
- Illustrated
.jpg){kind=link}
@Pi.1415926535: above comments hopefully now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Amitchell125: Almost there - I just have one more comment. This sentence is confusing:
Under contract from the Air Ministry, the Swan returned by Imperial Airways on 8 March the following year.
Was the operation of the Swan under contract, or was the return date specifically under the contract? I assume it was returned Imperial Airways? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)- It's not obvious that the date of return was part of the contract, and it cannot be be assumed. Hope the text is now clearer.Amitchell125 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Looks great, happy to pass now. Good work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not obvious that the date of return was part of the contract, and it cannot be be assumed. Hope the text is now clearer.Amitchell125 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)