Jump to content

Talk:Vecihi K-VI

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk08:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vecihi K-VI
The Vecihi K-VI

Created by Styyx (talk). Self-nominated at 18:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: New enough, long enough, neutral and sourced. No copyvios. Hook is interesting. AGF on the non-English source which I cannot read. Picture looks good. QPQ done. Looks good to go. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-built?

[edit]

In the introduction, is "single-built" meant to be "single engine"? Or is it a literal translation of some Turkish phrase? It doesn't seem to be a term normally used in English to describe airplanes. IAmNitpicking (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as confusing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vecihi K-VI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this article PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Development and production

[edit]
  • Split "On 14 June 1923, Hürkuş finished the technical drawings of the plane, which was to be used for training and reconnaissance purposes,[1]" and "and showed the project to lieutenant general Muzaffer Ergüder, an inspector in the air force, three days later, on 17 June." into 2 sentences
  • Remove the comma after "three days later"
  • Add "the drawings" after "After inspecting"
  • Remove the comma after "congratulated Hürkuş"
  • "a captured plane" do we know what model plane?
  • "at least 16 hours a day on the plane" → "at least 16 hours a day working on the plane"
  • "He was briefly sent away for a few months" during what months?
  • Remove the comma after "14 months"

Operational history

[edit]
  • Remove the comma after "Seydiköy Airfield"
  • Per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, the original Turkish quote for "should hop in and fly if he trusts [his] plane" and "met with lingering" should be included directly after the English translation in parenthesis. ("{{lang|tr|Turkish quote}}")
Since those sources use the Sfn template I can't add the |quote= parameter. I made a work around, please check.
  • "Hürkuş and his plane waited almost a month." what did he wait for and why did he have to wait?
  • Remove the comma after "filled with a crowd"
  • Remove the comma after "was towed to the hangar"
  • Remove the comma after "short jail sentence"
  • "overturned later" → "later overturned"
  • "stayed" → "remained"
  • "His requests to store the plane in an indoor area were also declined" declined by who?
  • "The Turkish Aeronautical Association officially requested" when?
  • "The Vecihi K-VI was later destroyed" when?
The fate of the aircraft after the flight is largly unknown and I don't have a date for this or the suggestion above. I have added a date on when Hürkuş found out that he wouldn't be able to get the plane back in any case. Any effort to return it would likely be before September 1925.
  • Remove the comma after "named the Vecihi K-XIV"

Overall

[edit]
  • Images properly licensed
  • No war edits
  • Neutral
  • Broad and focused
  • Sources are ok

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Styyx: I've left some comments for the review above. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 22:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PizzaKing13, I've made some changes. Styyx (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx: Edits look good. I fixed the quote thing myself since it's hard to explain. Good work, I'll pass this review. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 18:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]