Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Concorde/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Concorde

[edit]

Relisting after being delisted. Article is now massively referenced, and we have fixed all of the important issues previously making it ineligible for FA status. (Self nom, although work of very many people.)WolfKeeper 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While it may be massively referenced and the layout and info looks good. The ref are not been entered correctly. this page should help you. Buc 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While desirable, AFAIK that doesn't seem to be a mandated reference style for FA, and thus IMO should not gate FA. Can you refer me to where it is stated that this is the only acceptable format?WolfKeeper 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1c —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That just essentially says it has to be referenced, which it is. 2d gives multiple options for how it is referenced.WolfKeeper 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad 2d is what I was looking for. Buc 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You both can debate reference style later. In the mean time references like this: [1] should be expanded to the bare minimum requirements. Mark83 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have replaced all of these with the appropriate article textWolfKeeper 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Yes, as Buc mentions references are still a problem. For example many of them are just numbered urls - no title, source info, date, access date etc.
Done.WolfKeeper 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Done. While they do look a lot better they still require dates where avalible and acssesdates. Buc 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Concorde under Verrazano Bridge.jpg is strangely placed at the intro. It is an image depicting its time as a museum piece and should be in the retirement section in my opinion.
  • Too many pics? There is a gallery linked at the bottom. May I suggest a few candidates for removal to it (if not already there)?
  • The Withdrawal from service section is a bit disjointed. i.e. the first part of that section has copious amounts of BA-specific material which should be under the BA sub-heading.
  • "Cultural and political impact" is one (short) paragraph? That shocked me. I suggest merging this with "Public perception".
Yeah, it used be longer, but I removed stuff because it was uncited, and I couldn't find any cites for it. I've now merged it as you suggested.WolfKeeper 01:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Popular culture could do with being pruned. e.g. I know very few of these - but to take the one I know well, Snatch. Concorde features for less than two seconds in a 103 minute film. Not a "notable appearance or mention." Mark83 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've brutally shortened it down to only major references, basically chapters in books or greater.WolfKeeper 02:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few more:
  • Overlinking - BA 5 times, AF 6 times, TU-144 3 times. They're just the ones I noticed. However they are major factors of the article, so I doubt if there are many more such overlinks.
Done--WolfKeeper 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.*Aerospatiale appears with and without an accent. Should be consistent.

  • TOC too big. Under "Main problems overcome during design" I think "Passenger safety at altitude" should be removed."Increased radiation exposure" and "Cabin pressurisation" should just be two more subheadings of "Main problems overcome during design".
  • The "The aircraft was initially referred to in Britain as "Concorde.." section is too big. It might just be me, but at some point it crosses the line from interesting to uninteresting/minutiae.
It's all rah-rah nationalism, it was a fairly big thing at the time.WolfKeeper 01:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only Air France and British Airways (the successor to BOAC) took up their orders" -- Is it not more correct to say these nationalised airlines had the aircraft dumped on them?
No, they definitely had the choice, and because of that they were able to screw a damn good deal out of the government; it was essentially a zero-risk proposition for them.WolfKeeper 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe in the spirit of WP:Summary the Engines subsection of "Main problems overcome during design" should be trimmed considerably with a main link:{{main|Rolls-Royce Olympus}}
This one is a bit tricky, it's mostly about the supersonic air inlets which were very specific to Concorde, and they are not normally considered to be part of a jet engine itself, which pushes it more into the Concorde article and away from the Olympus one, so on strict technical grounds it should be in the Concorde article. Also the inlets had impact on the testing and there are interactions with airspeed and air conditioners and so forth. But I can see that shortening the article may be desirable. So I can move it if you insist.
  • "..experience gained in its design and manufacture which later became the basis of the Airbus consortium." great point, needs a ref though.
  • "the precipitous Air France retirement of its own Concorde fleet was the direct result of a secret conspiracy between Air France Chairman/CEO Jean-Cyril Spinetta and then-AIRBUS CEO Noel Forgeard" -- cited yes, but undercited in my opinion. This is a major allegation from just one source, the author of which's credentials are not clear to me. Might I suggest this is a conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory?
  • "The small hope remaining for Concorde today rests with a dedicated group of French volunteer engineers keeping one of the youngest Concordes (F-BTSD) in near-airworthy condition. " repeated later under "Aircraft histories".Mark83 21:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First of all, I love this plane and think it would have been awesome to fly in it. That said, this article fails badly in whole paragraphs (long ones) being completely unreferenced.

I think the references should also be constant throughout instead of a mix.

You need to explain what you mean by 'a mix'.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pict from the Paris crash could be added for enhancement.

Unfortunately, no, this is impossible for legal reasons.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many informal phrases

Please list what you consider to be informal phrases.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(why on earth would you use the @ symbol?)

done.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and a lack of no-break spaces.

done.--WolfKeeper 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also ran the semi-automated peer review on it and this is what it found

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
I do not consider this to be a fair criticism of the lead, and I do not feel that a tool can be trusted on this issue.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 kg, use 2 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 kg.[?]
done.--WolfKeeper 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are trivial issues.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor),
This is a British article, 'honor' is not present in the article.
favourite (B) (American: favorite),
This is a British article, favorite is not present in the article.
aluminium (B) (American: aluminum),
This is a British article 'aluminum' is not present in the article.
meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter),
This is a British article 'meter' is not present.

organise (B) (American: organize), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), modelling (B) (American: modeling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), ageing (B) (American: aging),

I'm sorry, but I have been unable to locate any American spellings. I do not consider that this tool can be trusted; the tool is expecting American spellings.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

routing (A) (British: routeing),

routing seems to be acceptable British english, it is used by the BBC.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).

fixed.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]

Good luck!!! — BQZip01 — talk 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is unimpressive.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Oppose Okay, just a quick one now before I go to bed, the article needs a WP:MOS overhaul before it should be promoted. I'll go into more detail asap. The Rambling Man 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 4x "citation needed", those have to be addressed
  • "Passenger experience" is largely unreferenced
  • "Paris crash" contains 3x just a numbered URL
  • "Operational history" contains several large unreferenced parts:
    • "The service was discontinued...Acapulco."
    • "Between 1984 and 1991,...Washington to Nice, France."
  • "Withdrawal from service" has a large unreferenced part:
    • "The small hope remaining for Concorde ...regain airworthiness certification."
  • References need authors/date/publishers/accessdate
  • References should be checked for redundancy (e.g. 53 and 54 are identical)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Concorde/archive1&oldid=1138457882"