Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle

Nominator(s): The Bushranger _{One ping only}

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it is currently including all reasonably available information, I believe, and is well-referenced and well-illustrated. An intriguing footnote in the U.S. Army's history that I think meets the A-class criteria - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Second paragraph of Design: suggest splitting into two sentences
"inter-mesh" or "intermesh"? Check for internal consistency throughout
Some copy-editing is needed for clarity and flow
Short citation lists Corn and Horrigan as coauthors, but Bibliography entry lists only Corn
Multi-page sources should include page numbers
Citation formatting needs editing for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have page numbers for all of the sources - the information is viewable in the Gbooks links and thus verifiable, but the page numbers were not shown. I'll get to the rest shortly. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked per the above, bar perhaps one or two refs. Could you give examples of where you think clarity and flow needs improving? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "The machine was a simple, cross-shaped frame, with the pilot standing on a platform, secured by a safety harness along with the engine, which was an outboard motor manufactured by Mercury Marine" - not clear whether the engine is on the platform or secured by a safety harness. Another example: "Over 160 flights totaling more than 15 hours of flight time were conducted,[7] and the results of this early test flight program were considered promising enough that a dozen examples of the type were ordered[1] (serial numbers 56-6928 to 56-6939),[8] and predictions that the craft could provide transport to a modern version of the old horse cavalry, providing airborne "eyes and ears" for the Army, were made" - very long sentence, difficult to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give the whole thing a thorough copyedit later today. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done cleared those up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User talk:Dank#Copyediting at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Suggestions:
- "NACA testing proved that the idea had merit, and several companies began development of rotorcraft using the concept, including Bensen Aircraft, Hiller Aircraft, and de Lackner Helicopters." - might sound better as: "NACA testing proved that the idea had merit, and several companies, including Bensen Aircraft, Hiller Aircraft, and de Lackner Helicopters, began development of rotorcraft using the concept";
  - Done Good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Captain Sundby was awarded..." per WP:SURNAME it should just be "Sundby" without the rank;
- "...retiring with the rank of Colonel" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, I think it should just be "colonel";
  - Done both. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Bibliography, "Maurice A. Smith", should probably be listed with the surname first for consistency;
- in the Bibliography, "Retrieved 29 Sept 2011" - should probably be "Retrieved 29 September 2011" for consistency with other dates in the list;
- in the Bibliography, some of the "work=" parameters don't seem right to me. For instance, "U.S. Army Transportation Museum" and "Hiller Aviation Museum" seem more likely to be publishers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done all done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment:

A fascinating machine. Some thoughts:
" (to 50 miles (80 km)[4]) " - the double brackets could be pared down
"cargo lifting line being able to be threaded" - could be simplified.
" secured by a safety harness along with the engine" - do you mean that the engine was secured by a harness, or that the pilot was secured next to the engine?
"Wind tunnel testing was conducted in the full-scale wind tunnel at the Langley Research Center," - repetition of wind tunnel.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done All done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews! Any further thoughts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The article uses Vectorsite.net as a reference in 5 places currently. This is a self-published source. Try to replace these with better sources or back-up with other references. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered about that (given that VS does extensively cite its sources...). I'll see if I can grab the book VS used to directly cite. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the US Army aircraft book. I'll see what I can cite with it... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks. (I meant to buy it this month, but decided to get Fairey Aircraft since 1915 to improve Fairey Stooge instead...!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Harding book has 1 page on the HZ-1 and that includes specs and a picture. So I could only cite a couple things with it. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support no outstanding issues, except for the strange reference formatting. --Sp33dyphil © • © 06:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.