Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arado Ar E.381

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.

No consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerene^talk 09:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arado Ar E.381 edit

Nominator(s): WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down)

Featured article candidates/Arado Ar E.381/archive1

Prior nom here

I am listing this at A-class review because it has failed a previous A-class review and I feel I have met all the concerns raised there. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I found this article to be very interesting, but I don't think that it meets the A class criteria yet:
- I have to say I'm confused about whether this aircraft ever existed — the last paragraph of the 'Development' section states that it was never built, but the remainer of the article talks about the aircraft's actual capabilities. If it wasn't built the article should refer to the design rather than the aircraft itself to avoid this confusion.
  - I've used a future tense in most of the article. If you still have objections, label individual sentences or paragraphs for correction. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the article is actually written in the past tense (eg, 'The aircraft was powered by', 'The fighter's fuel capacity was sufficient', 'After an attack the fuel was exhausted and the pilot had to glide back to the ground,', etc). Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~Regex Done. Check for me if it is ok now. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
        As somebody just pointed out with this edit, this reads better, and is usually accepted even among other cancelled projects (as far as I know of.) WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That doesn't really remove the problem; it appears that this article is about a design that never made it past the early stages of development (much less ever flew), yet this isn't specified in the lead and the wording in the article is unclear (for instance, what's meant by 'prototypes were designed and conceived'?). Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think that it is resolved actually — the article still says that this "was a fighter aircraft" when it wasn't, and the tense and tone is maintained throughout the article. This results in a misleading and confusing article. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Derild4921 completed copyedits, check again if you have questions. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Its intended usage was the interception of American and British bombers after closing the firing distance to a minimum, thus increasing odds of hitting the target" this is written in the passive voice and (largely as a result) is unclear
  - Its supposed to be passive and unclear. How could you be bold and clear about a project that never even flew? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "These aircraft were intended to intercept American and British bombers and attack them from a short range, thereby increasing the odds of hitting their target" or similar would work. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably more accurate to say that the project was 'abandoned' rather than 'cancelled' at the end of the war as this implies that there was still some form of governing authority which cancelled the aircraft
  - Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was 'gaining a tactical advantage by placing excessive stress on the man in cockpit' a 'Nazi concept'?
  - I don't know. I'm waiting for the source to find out. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Renneberg and Walker doesn't state why, it just states it. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I correct in reading the article to state that the designs were redeveloped after it was determined that the G forces 'exceeded human capabilities'? If not, it's confusing to say in one sentence that the pilots would certainly die and then in the next that they could survive if they flew in a prone position
  - Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any of the sources talk about the practicality of this concept? From my perspective, it would seem that this was a very bad idea — the carrier aircraft would have been slaughtered by Allied fighters (which roamed freely rather than provided close defence to bomber formations) and it's hard to see how the Arado Ar E.381 pilot would have ever spotted any targets given his constricted vision, much less have safely landed the aircraft after combat sorties. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No they do not. The aircraft was designed to be small so it could present a smaller target to the guns of the fighters and bombers (this is stated in the article). The pilot had a virtual bubble of vision forward and to most of the side and, concerning the vision toward the bottom, it was probably better than contemporary fighters, according to the images from the sources. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that these aircraft seem to have had a similar rationale to the Me 163, but were much more vulnerable before attacking their targets and probably had a lower chance of landing safely, it's hard to see why they'd be more successful than that failed design. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This was a last ditch resort to save the Third Reich. I don't think the Germans cared what the pilot saw or what chances he had of landing, as long as he stopped come of the devastating Air Force raids. Besides, the Me 163 was not a failure, the rationale for these designs were relatively good for the circumstances. The Me 163 could have changed the course of the war had the Germans started the program earlier and fixed some of the problems plaguing the engines. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose depths of research M Renneberg, M Walker - 2003 Science, technology, and national socialism ; I still find it fairly suspicious that there are no other M-Z last name authors cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I responded to this at the last review. I've searched Google Books, as well as my local library system (KCLS). If you find this source authored by a guy with a A-M last name, ping me on my talkpage. I'm also waiting for an interlibrary loan of the book Sturm suggested. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A1 is fairly intransigent, "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Perhaps you should not request an A class assessment while the article does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". In the meantime, Renneberg and Walker 2003 is available by google books for your consultation; and includes high quality archival research on the purposive function of the device &tc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Already doneWe ~~used it before~~are using it, and we are using Krantzhoff. Does that address your concern? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing i noted is missing is whether or not any of the prototypes were preserved and if so where is there location, if they were not preserved mention what happened to them if the data is available.XavierGreen (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No data as of now. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - None were built, so none could be preserved. The example in the infobox image is a mockup. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case the infobox caption needs to be changed so it isn't labeled a 'prototype', which is something much more advanced than a mockup. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Of the first seven concerns I brought up at the FAC, one has been removed and the other six haven't been addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Your fourth point does not have any basis. It's supposed to get as close as it can without crashing and fire. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still opposing on prose, but if the other opposes are dealt with, I'll do the rest of the copyediting myself since the article is so short, and then support. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They have been dealt with. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 22:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: given that the article has been moved so that the "Ar." designation has been removed from the title, I suggest removing this from the article as well. For instance in the lead, infobox, Development section, etc. Otherwise it will confuse readers, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:24, 29 October 2010 (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.